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

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 been levied @\n25%. The net demand raised as per the Assessment Order is Rs.\n47,37,312/- which is inclusive

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.

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee made an allegation that the AO had not issued any such notice u/s. 148 on 30/03/2019 and therefore the order passed u/s. 144 is ab-initio-void. The assessee also contended that another notice u/s

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.

unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 4. The assessee made an allegation that the AO had not issued any such notice u/s. 148 on 30/03/2019 and therefore the order passed u/s. 144 is ab-initio-void. The assessee also contended that another notice u/s

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

money by the assessee. (ii) Because, there is no evidence of transfer of funds from one end to another, which is a condition precedent for assessment of undisclosed income based on a seized document, as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271

DALAVAI AUDIKESAVULU SRINIVAS L/H OF LATE SMT D A SATHYAPRABHA,BENGALURU vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K.

money by the assessee. (ii) Because, there is no evidence of transfer of funds from one end to another, which is a condition precedent for assessment of undisclosed income based on a seized document, as held by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court and Hon'ble Supreme Court. 4. The learned AO erred in initiating the penalty proceedings u/s 271

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

money could never be possible considering there is no physical existence of the same. By applying the theory of elimination, the only possibility is that advancing of such money never took place. Page 40 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.47 At the cost of repetition, he submitted that the AO erred in relying upon

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

money could never be possible considering there is no physical existence of the same. By applying the theory of elimination, the only possibility is that advancing of such money never took place. Page 40 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.47 At the cost of repetition, he submitted that the AO erred in relying upon

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

money could never be possible considering there is no physical existence of the same. By applying the theory of elimination, the only possibility is that advancing of such money never took place. Page 40 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.47 At the cost of repetition, he submitted that the AO erred in relying upon

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are partly allowed and ITA No

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiita Nos.1061 To 1066/Bang/2023 Assessment Years: 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja No.402, 4Th Floor, Embassy Centre No.11, Crescent Road Dcit Bengaluru 560 001 Vs. Central Circle-1(3) Karnataka Bengaluru Pan No : Abkpt1011B Assessee Respondent Assessee By : Shri V. Srinivasan, A.R. Respondent By : Shri G. Manoj Kumar, D.R. Date Of Hearing : 01.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.03.2024 O R D E R Per Chandra Poojari: The Appeals In Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 Are Emanated From The Common Order Of Cit(A) Central Circle, Bengaluru For The Assessment Years 2014-15 To 2018-19 Dated 16.11.2023. Ita No.1064/Bang/2023 Is Emanated From The Order Of Cit(A) Dated 11.8.2023 For The Assessment Year 2016-17 With Regard To Levy Of Penalty U/S 271Aab Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”). Since The Issue In All These Appeals Is Common In Nature, These Are Clubbed Together, Heard Together & Disposed Of By This Common Order For The Sake Of Convenience. 2. First, We Will Take Up Ita Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 For Adjudication. The Common Ground In All These Appeals Except Change In Figures, Which Reads As Under:

money could never be possible considering there is no physical existence of the same. By applying the theory of elimination, the only possibility is that advancing of such money never took place. Page 40 of 121 ITA Nos.1061 to 1066/Bang/2023 Sri Prakash Bhajandas Talreja, Bangalore 9.47 At the cost of repetition, he submitted that the AO erred in relying upon

SRI PRAKASH BHAJANDAS TALREJA,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU

In the result, ITA Nos.1061, 1062, 1063, 1065 & 1066/Bang/2023 are\npartly allowed and ITA No

money, bullion, jewellery or any other valuable article or thing. The\nexplanation to Section 132 (4), which was inserted by the Direct Tax Laws (Amendment) Act,\n1987 w.e.f. 1st April, 1989, further clarifies that a person may be examined not only in respect\nof the books of accounts or other documents found as a result of search but also

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

unexplained money'.” 7.2 From the above submission, it appears that there was regular cash withdrawals as well as cash 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

M/S J C R DRILLSOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE - 4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act even though the assessee had submitted that the said excess share application money was received from the two Directors in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. Another addition u/s. 68 was made in both the A.Ys. Even though the assessee had explained the details of the excess cash, the AO had not accepted

M/S JCR DRILLSOL PRIVATE LIMITED,BENGALURU vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE -4(3)(1), BENGALURU

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

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

unexplained credit u/s. 68 of the Act even though the assessee had submitted that the said excess share application money was received from the two Directors in respect of A.Y. 2015-16. Another addition u/s. 68 was made in both the A.Ys. Even though the assessee had explained the details of the excess cash, the AO had not accepted

MKH INFRASTRUCTURE,KERALA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. 5.9 No explanation was offered by the appellant in respect of the above additions during this proceeding despite several notices and opportunities provided. Therefore, the additions made i.e. Rs.5 Lakh and Rs.3 1,32,000/-for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively were

M/S. EMIRATES HINDUSTAN BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. 5.9 No explanation was offered by the appellant in respect of the above additions during this proceeding despite several notices and opportunities provided. Therefore, the additions made i.e. Rs.5 Lakh and Rs.3 1,32,000/-for A/Y 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively were

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY,BANGALORE vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BENGALURU

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount

KASIREDDY RANADHEER REDDY ,BENGALURU vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

unexplained money to the tune of Rs. 1,12,00,000 (Rs. 1 Crore principal and Rs. 12 Lakhs interest thereon) based on page 102 of A/ST/KKR/01. 5. Aggrieved by the action of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A) 6. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee submitted that the purported amount