MOHAMMED MUJEEB SIKANDER,MANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE (1), MANGALORE

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

147, section 148, section 149, section 151 and section 153, where the Assessing Officer is satisfied that any money, bullion, jewellery or other valuable article or thing or books of account or documents seized or requisitioned belongs or belong to a person other than the person referred to in section 153A, then the books of account or documents or assets

SHRI.J M VRUSHABENDRAIAH ,HOSPET vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1 , BELLARY

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2010-11

5. The Ld. A.R. submitted with regard to ground Nos.2 to 6 as follows:- 5.1 Ground No. 2: The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act is not in accordance with law as the Assessing officer has proposed to reassess, whereas there has never been an assessment originally

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BANGALORE

5,729 gms. of gold ornaments, cash of Rs.1,69,000 and books\nof account weighing nearly 500 kgs. On 26-10-1996, 6 kgs. of silver articles in\nthe said cupboard were released, a panchanama was made and a further order\nunder section 132(3) was passed with respect to the said sealed cupboard and\nthe seal was placed

SRI SRINIVASA EDUCATIONAL & CHARITABLE TRUST,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), BENGALURU

5,729 gms. of gold ornaments, cash of Rs.1,69,000 and books\nof account weighing nearly 500 kgs. On 26-10-1996, 6 kgs. of silver articles in\nthe said cupboard were released, a panchanama was made and a further order\nunder section 132(3) was passed with respect to the said sealed cupboard and\nthe seal was placed

MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR,BANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

5 16 140.92 B.S.Bhaskar 31/8/2006 1973000 1578400 SBI, 1014613 394600 66245 DVH 1350470/- 24/8/06(p.o.no.336398) 6 81 337.55 T.K.Shabbir ahmed 25/8/06 4726000 3780830 SBI 2430360 945208 158678.82 DKS 751764/- 24/8/06(р.о.о.336397) 7 20 180.41 S.Kalavathi 25/8/06 2525850 2020680 SBI 1268916 505170 84807 DKS Total 26889025 21511250 14720806 5377813 794353.6 6172167 Ready for registration (BBMP) SHREE Balance

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE- 1(4), BANGALORE vs. MR. D K SHIVAKUMAR, BANGALORE

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan K

5 16 140.92 B.S.Bhaskar 31/8/2006 1973000 1578400 SBI, 1014613 394600 66245 DVH 1350470/- 24/8/06(p.o.no.336398) 6 81 337.55 T.K.Shabbir ahmed 25/8/06 4726000 3780830 SBI 2430360 945208 158678.82 DKS 751764/- 24/8/06(p.o.o.336397) 7 20 180.41 S.Kalavathi 25/8/06 2525850 2020680 SBI 1268916 505170 84807 DKS Total 26889025 21511250 14720806 5377813 794353.6 6172167 Ready for registration (BBMP) SHREE Balance

INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 HASSAN, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONGS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. Notice u/s 143(2) issued and Pending regular assessment assessment pending u/s 143(3) proceedings would abate and would converge/merge in proceedings u/s 153A. Accordingly the scope of assessment under section 153A would cover the pending return filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER W 1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. Notice u/s 143(2) issued and Pending regular assessment assessment pending u/s 143(3) proceedings would abate and would converge/merge in proceedings u/s 153A. Accordingly the scope of assessment under section 153A would cover the pending return filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, VIJAYANAGAR vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY AND SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. Notice u/s 143(2) issued and Pending regular assessment assessment pending u/s 143(3) proceedings would abate and would converge/merge in proceedings u/s 153A. Accordingly the scope of assessment under section 153A would cover the pending return filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page

M/S. S. RAMASHANDRA SETTY & SONS,HASSAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. Notice u/s 143(2) issued and Pending regular assessment assessment pending u/s 143(3) proceedings would abate and would converge/merge in proceedings u/s 153A. Accordingly the scope of assessment under section 153A would cover the pending return filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page

INCOME TAX OFFICER, W-1, HASSAN vs. RAMACHANDRA SETTY & SONS, HASSAN

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

5. Notice u/s 143(2) issued and Pending regular assessment assessment pending u/s 143(3) proceedings would abate and would converge/merge in proceedings u/s 153A. Accordingly the scope of assessment under section 153A would cover the pending return filed as well and would not be restricted to incriminating ITA Nos.1156 & 1163 to 1166/Bang/2023 M/s. S. Ramachandra Setty & Sons, Hassan Page

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.” ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 45 of 115 10.2. Thus, the scope of provisions of section 153A of the Act could be summarized as follows: Scenario Scope of Section 153A 1. No return of income is filed by Since

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.” ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 45 of 115 10.2. Thus, the scope of provisions of section 153A of the Act could be summarized as follows: Scenario Scope of Section 153A 1. No return of income is filed by Since

M/S. TRISHUL BUILDTECH & INFRASTRUCTURES PVT. LTD.,,BENGALURU vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), BENGALURU

In the result, assessee’s appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.

reassess income of such other person in accordance with the provisions of Section 153A.” ITA Nos.107 to 109/Bang/2022 M/s. Trishul Buildtech & Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore Page 45 of 115 10.2. Thus, the scope of provisions of section 153A of the Act could be summarized as follows: Scenario Scope of Section 153A 1. No return of income is filed by Since

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 3(2)(3), BANGALORE vs. SRI MADE GOWDA THIBBE GOWDA, BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed and CO of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2008-09

reassess income of such person i.e., other than the person searched in accordance with the provisions of section 153A. On this point, it is appropriate to mention the & CO No.51/Bang/2019 Page 36 of 38 ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Pepsi Beverages P. Ltd., 367 ITR 112 (Del) wherein it was explained

M/S. CRYSTAL GRANITE AND MARBLE PRIVATE LIMITED,RAMANAGARAM vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE-2(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and Stay Petition is dismissed as infructuous

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P No.29/Bang/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18

5. The ld. AR submitted that, the assessee filed appeal before the CIT(A), the CIT(A) passed the order u/s 250 of the Act confirming the addition of Rs.81,00,000/- by holding that the assessee did not comply any of the notices served to the assessee. The ld.AR further submitted that the AO issued another notices on 02/06/2022

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), , BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.) (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question

SUNITA MADHOK ,BANGALORE vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1(2)(1), BANGALORE

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are partly allowed

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt. Beena Pillai

132 or section 132A, after the expiry of one month from the date on which he was served with a notice under sub-section (1) of section 153A or sub-section (2) of section 153C or after the completion of the assessment, whichever is earlier.) (4) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (3), where an assessee calls in question

M/S. MUKKA PROTEINS LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOW AS MUKKA SEA FOOD INDUSTRIES LTD., ),MANGALORE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, , MANGALURU

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

reassessment proceedings for the year 2003-04, it was found that purchases worth Rs.61.40 lakhs were not supported by sufficient evidence. Purchase of such goods from various suppliers was verified, but it was found that such parties had not supplied the goods as named by the assessee. The Assessing Officer made an addition of the entire amount of purchase