IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.754/Bang/2024 Assessment year : 2017-18

Kempapura Srinivasareddy Uday, 328, B Block Aces Layout, Kundalahali, Bangalore – 560 037. PAN : ACTPU 3804H	Vs.	The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 2(2), Bengaluru.
APPELLANT		RESPONDENT

Appellant by : Shri Siddesh N. Gaddi, CA Respondent by : Shri Satish M., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru.

Date of hearing : 25.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.08.2024

O R D E R

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member These appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated

28.02.2024 of the CIT(Appeals)-15, Bangalore, for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds:-

“1. The impugned order passed by the Learned Officers (the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 2(2), Blr and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bangalore), to the extent prejudicial to the Appellant, is not justified in law and on facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the AO, to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the Assessee.

3. The Learned Officer has erred in law and on facts in passing the impugned order without jurisdiction;

4. The Learned CIT(A)/AO have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that in the absence of incriminating materials, there is no question of making an assessment in the case of concluded/unabated assessments.

5. The Learned AO has erred in making an addition u/s 69A of the Act to the extent of Rs. 11,41,543/-.

6. The Learned CIT(A)/AO have erred in rejecting the explanation of the appellant on the source of cash deposits by passing a vague order.

7. The Learned Officers have erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the Appellant has discharged the primary onus cast upon him under section 69A of the Act. However, the secondary onus has not been discharged in accordance with the law.

8. Based on the above, the Learned AO has erred in law and on facts in invoking the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act; 9. Based on the above, the Learned AO has erred in law and in fact in raising demand by levying interest u/s 234A/234B of the Act.”

2. The Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee is an individual deriving income from other sources. The assessee has not filed return of income u/s. 139(1)/139(4) of the Act for AY 2017-18. A search u/s. 132 was conducted in the case of assessee at No.328, B Block, ACES Layout, near Ganesha Temple, Kundalahalli, Bengaluru – 560 037 on 05.02.2020 in connection with search proceedings in group cases of M/s. Ectasy Projects Pvt. Ltd. and NBR Group. Notice u/s. 153A was issued on 18.11.2020. In response to the notice, the assessee filed return of income on 18.12.2020 admitting income of Rs.70. Thereafter notice u/s. 143(2) was issued to the assessee. The ld. AR appeared and field documents as called for. It was noticed that assessee has deposited Rs.11,41,500 in his SB A/c No. 14721000012070. In this regard there was no explanation from assessee’s side. Thereafter show cause notice was issued and assessee stated the cash deposit should not be disallowed u/s. 69A of the Act and shall not be taxed as per section 115BBE of the Act. There was no explanation submitted by the assessee, accordingly for want of proper explanation Rs.11,41,500 was treated as income u/s. 69A and tax was calculated as per section 115BBE of the Act. Aggrieved from the above order, the assessee filed appeal before the First Appellate Authority (FAA).

3. During the appellate proceedings before the FAA the assessee filed additional evidence and it was remanded to the AO for remand report which was submitted by the AO and it was provided to the assessee for rejoinder, which was also submitted by the assessee. The ld. FAA noted that assessee filed one page bank account statement and assessee has not demonstrated any

Click Here to Read the rest of this document