NANDIGOWDANAHALLI MANJAPPA PUSHPA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(2)(1), BENGALURU

cash deposits into\nbank accounts as unexplained money over and above the addition\nmade by treating the agricultural income of unexplained money\namounts to double addition. The total of Rs. 43,17,498/- made u/s\n69A of the Act (Rs. 28,97,498 + Rs.14,20,000) is taxed @ 60% u/s\n115BBE of the Act and surcharge of Rs.6,47,625/has

SRI. PADMANABHA MANGALORE CHOWTA,MANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, RANGE-1, MANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2017 – 18

depositing the cash so received in his bank account and offering the same while computing long term capital gains in the return of income voluntarily filed for the year under appeal under the facts and in the circumstances of the appellant's case. 4. The levy of penalty u/s 271

SYED IRFAN GULAB JAN PASHA ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash deposits are recycled deposits out of the earlier withdrawals and the LIC premiums received from the clients. Insofar as the deposit in HDFC Bank, the assessee submitted that it is a joint account and he has not remitted any money into the said account. The Ld.CIT(A) not Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos. 1094 & 1095/Bang/2025 accepted the grounds

SYED IRFAN GULAB JAN PASHA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash deposits are recycled deposits out of the earlier withdrawals and the LIC premiums received from the clients. Insofar as the deposit in HDFC Bank, the assessee submitted that it is a joint account and he has not remitted any money into the said account. The Ld.CIT(A) not Page 6 of 8 ITA Nos. 1094 & 1095/Bang/2025 accepted the grounds

SRI. SHANKAR SOUHARDHA PATTINA SAHAKARI NIYAMIT ,GULBARGA vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1& TPS , GULBARGA

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahuassessment Year : 2015-16

deposits in bank account remained unexplained. Proceedings u/s 148 were initiated and various opportunities were given to the assessee to explain the income chargeable to tax which has escaped assessment for the Assessment Year 2015-16. Since the assessee had not filed any reply, it was logically concluded that he had no proper explanation with respect to the above cash

SMT. JAVANGI HARIBUSHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) proceedings simultaneously. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue observed and held as under: “6. DECISION: In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer worth Rs. 31,80,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

SMT. JAVANGI HARIBUSHNA,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-2(2)(3), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal in ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) proceedings simultaneously. 2.4 Aggrieved by the order of the Ld.AO, assessee filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.CIT(A) while deciding the issue observed and held as under: “6. DECISION: In this case, the addition has been made by the Assessing Officer worth Rs. 31,80,000/- u/s 68 of the Income

MAHESHWARAPPA MUNIRAMU,BANGALORE vs. JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, RANGE 2(2), BENGALURU, BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18 Maheshwarappa Muniramu #4261/17, 2Nd Cross, 20Th Main Subramanya Nagar Jcit Vs. Bengaluru 560 021 Range 2(2) Bangalore Pan No :Aempm8290C Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Sri Nagaraj K. H., Ca Respondent By : Sri Subramaniam, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing : 30.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 26.09.2025

u/s 269SS of the Act and accepted his share of sale consideration of Rs.10 lakhs in cash. This bonafide belief clearly established from the fact that the assessee had deposited the cash received on sale of immovable property into his bank account maintained with canara bank & thereafter deposited/transferred the same to the bank account opened under the capital gains account

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

cash amounting to Rs. 11,94,500/-and other deposits are\nRs.48,17,614/- during demonetization period. In all there are deposits to\nthe tune of Rs. 60,12,114/- which the learned AO has presumed as the\nassessee's income and proceeded to issue notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act\nfor the assessment year

MANJUNATH B ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, , RAMNAGAR

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

deposits in the bank and in such facts and circumstances presumption can be drawn that the cash withdrawal by the assessee has been utilized for redeposit in the bank until and unless it is based on record that the cash withdrawal has been used for some other purposes such investment, personal expenses etc. However, no such finding is arising from

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4) , BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SRI. ANAND,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

SHRI. ANAND ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(2)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Chandra Poojari

271 are mentioned would not satisfy requirement of law. r) The assessee should know the grounds which he has to meet specifically. Otherwise, principles of natural justice is offended. On the basis of such proceedings, no penalty could be imposed to the assessee. s) Taking up of penalty proceedings on one limb and finding the assessee guilty of another limb

HOLADAGADDE HALAPPAGOWDA DEVARAJ,CHIKMAGALUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHIKMAGALUR

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18

cash deposits in bank account during the year. 4) The Learned Assessing Officer has erred in not considering the RTC copies, sales bills and related documents submitted for the subject year and erred in stating that the assesse has failed to prove the genuineness of agricultural income. 5) The learned AO has erred in initiating penalty proceedings u/s 271

SHRI. KRISHNAMURTHY NARYANAMURTHY,BENGALURU vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(3)(4), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year : 2015-16

penalty levied u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act]. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income on 03.08.2016 declaring total income of Rs.2,65,410. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued to the Page 2 of 4 assessee. During the course

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 1 TPS VIJAYAPUR , VIJAYAPUR vs. PRATHAMIK KRUSHI PATTIN SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMIT SARWAD , SARWAD

In the result, all the 3 appeals filed by the Revenue are allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

cash so accumulated is deposited into bank account of the assessee, naturally there could not be any addition in the hands of the assessee u/s. 69A of the Act. However, if the source of funds is from deposits other than the members, naturally the assessee is duty bound to explain how it has received such funds. As these details