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

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Soundarajan Kassessment Year : 2018-19

Unexplained money based on material seized from residence of the Assessee Rs. 28,00,00,000/-. (i) The assessee has admitted that the entries in the loose sheets which are found and seized are in his handwriting marked as DKS/ST/LS/01. The assessee has not been able to explain these entries satisfactorily that these do not represent his undisclosed income

NERALAKERE MARULASIDDAPPA DAYANANDA ,TARIKERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 , CHIKMAGALUR

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

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Neralakere Marulasiddappa The Income-Tax Officer, Dayananda, Ward-1, S/O Ns Marulasiddappa, Vs. Chikmagalur. Neralekere Post, Tarikere. Pan – Aswpd 5306 N Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Vevek A.R, Advocate Revenue By : Smt. Priyadarshini Besaganni, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing : 15.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.06.2023 O R D E R Per Beena Pillaipresent Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 2/2/2023 Passed By The Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18 On Following Ground Of Appeal:- 1. The Entire Appeal Order Passed By Learned Cit In So Far It Is Against The Appellant Is Opposed To Principle Of Equity & Justice. 2. The Learned Ao Erred In Bringing Amount Of Rs.18.44 Lakhs To Tax Without Appreciating The Fact That, Appellant Is An Agriculturist & Has Given All Particulars Which Were Sought By The Learned Ao. 3. The Learned Ao Ought To Have Considered The Income Of Huf Also While Concluding The Assessment. Page 2 Of 7

transfers. Categorically, the assessee submitted before the authorities below that the cash during the demonetization period into bank account is out of agricultural proceeds only, which has been declared in the return of income. The ld.AO after considering various submission of the assessee made addition of Rs.18,44,000/- as assessee failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation with documentary evidences

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA\nNo

Unexplained investment u/s 69B\nTotal\nRs.80 lakhs\nRs.4 lakhs\nRs.84 lakhs.\n3.1\nAccording to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose\nslips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that\nthe said loose slips reads as follows:\nITBA/AST/M/153A/2019-20/1023248118(1)\nRabs: 125,000/ Cong.\n(Paid 95,00,000/-\nBclamce Dmart\nmoth\n68\n3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MOHAMMED IBRABIM MOHIDEEN ,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, MANGALURU

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2, , MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

MOHAMMED IBRAHIM MOHIDEEN,KERALA vs. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2,, MANGALORE

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Keshav Dubey

Unexplained investment u/s 69B - Rs.4 lakhs Total - Rs.84 lakhs. 3.1 According to the ld. A.R, these additions are based on loose slips and not on any supporting documents. She submitted that the said loose slips reads as follows: ITA Nos.463 to 466, 485 & 486/Bang/2024 Mohammed Ibrahim Mohideen, Kasargod, Kerala Page 6 of 62 3.2 The ld. A.R. submitted that basis

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

investments in the hands of the appellant and to dodge the proceedings. It is also a fact that the appellant had not produced the persons who contributed to the cash payments before the AO for examination. It is not the case that the investors/contributors were some third parties on whom the appellant had no control or relationship. All the persons

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

investments in the hands of the appellant and to dodge the proceedings. It is also a fact that the appellant had not produced the persons who contributed to the cash payments before the AO for examination. It is not the case that the investors/contributors were some third parties on whom the appellant had no control or relationship. All the persons

SMT. MALAPUR MOUNIKA,CHITRADURGA vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, WARD-1, CHITRADURGA

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

Bench: Shri George George Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Smt. Malapur Mounika, Vs. Ito, Prop : M/S. Kaligal Poultry Services, Ward – 1, M H Road, Chitradurga. Chitradurga – 577 501. Pan : Bhypm 5247 F Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel For Revenue. Date Of Hearing : 27.10.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.10.2023

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act does not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been disputed and has been created out of ordinary business sales which has been credited into books of accounts and profits has also beenduly included in the return of income filed in relevant assessment year. Therefore, we are of the considered

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Unexplained investments Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

SHRI. NAGARAJ VINAYAK JOSHI,KARAWAR vs. THE PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (CENTRAL) , BENGALURU

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Unexplained investments Where in the financial year immediately preceding the assessment year the assessee has made investments which are not recorded in the books of account, if any, maintained by him for any source of income, and the assessee offers no explanation about the nature and source of the investments or the explanation offered

EAPEN GEORGE,BENGALURU vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD INTERNATIONAL TAXATION 1(1), BENGALURU

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

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.

unexplained investments u/s 69 of the Act failing to recognize that the appellant, as a non-resident, made these investments from foreign income sources. 9. The learned DRP erred in dismissing the objections of the petitioner solely on the basis that the petitioner submitted additional evidence along with the paper book rather than as a separate application, as required under

M/S. MAHAVEERA MINORITY CREDIT CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LIMITED,VIJAYANAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1 & TPS , HOSPET

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

unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act\ndoes not arise. In this case, the source of deposits has not been\ndisputed and has been created out of ordinary business sales which\nhas been credited into books of accounts and profits has also\nbeenduly included in the return of income filed in relevant\n assessment year. Therefore

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price. . ITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 to 2132, 1448 to 1453 & 1454 to 1459/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 116 6.2 The seized material, along with the statement of the manager, Shri Javeed Parvez, was confronted to the assessee, late Shri V.G. Siddhartha, who agreed to offer an additional income of ₹11.625 crores for the year under consideration on account of unexplained

MR. ISHAAN HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOMER TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price. . ITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 to 2132, 1448 to 1453 & 1454 to 1459/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 116 6.2 The seized material, along with the statement of the manager, Shri Javeed Parvez, was confronted to the assessee, late Shri V.G. Siddhartha, who agreed to offer an additional income of ₹11.625 crores for the year under consideration on account of unexplained

MR. AMARTHYA SIDDHARTHA L/R OF LATE SRI. V G . SIDDHARTHA ,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price. . ITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 to 2132, 1448 to 1453 & 1454 to 1459/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 116 6.2 The seized material, along with the statement of the manager, Shri Javeed Parvez, was confronted to the assessee, late Shri V.G. Siddhartha, who agreed to offer an additional income of ₹11.625 crores for the year under consideration on account of unexplained

MRS. MALAVIKA HEGDE L/R OF LATE SRI. V G SIDDHARTHA,BANGALORE vs. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BANGALORE

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

price. . ITA No.1442 to 1447, 2129 to 2132, 1448 to 1453 & 1454 to 1459/Bang/2024 Page 7 of 116 6.2 The seized material, along with the statement of the manager, Shri Javeed Parvez, was confronted to the assessee, late Shri V.G. Siddhartha, who agreed to offer an additional income of ₹11.625 crores for the year under consideration on account of unexplained