IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI,VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER IT(IT)A No.582/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Saikat Chinmay Bhattacharya A-74, Maker Kundan Gardens Juhu Rx Opp Ltdo Cinema DCIT Santacruz Vs. International tax, Mumbai 400 049 Circle 1(1)

Bangalore PAN NO : AADPB5450C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : CA Darshit Naik, A.R.

Respondent by : Dr. Divya K.J, CIT D.R.

Date of Hearing : 22.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 16.02.2026

O R D E R

PER KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER:

This Appeal at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Intl. Taxation, Circle-1(1), Bengaluru dated 27/01/2025 vide DIN and Order No: ITBA/AST/S/147/2024-25/1072580233(1) passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144C(13) of the income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) for the AY

2015-16.

2. The assessee has raised the following Grounds of appeal:-

1. The Learned Assessing Officer has erred, in Law and on Facts, in assessing income of your Appellant at Rs.79,24,880/- as against returned income of Rs.2,54,880/-.

2. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in making an addition of Rs.76,70,000/- u/s. 69 of the Act.

3. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s. 69 of the Act by holding that the Appellant was required to explain the source of the source when there was no statutory requirement to this effect.

4. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in disregarding the evidence furnished by Appellant in support of his claim that the said amount of Rs.76,70,000/- was a gift received from his sister.

5. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in rejecting to application filed by the Appellant without appreciate to the facts and circumstances of the matter.

6. The Learned Dispute Resolution Panel erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer’s proposition to make an addition u/s. 69 of the Act.

7. Both lower authorities erred in holding that the gift received for assesses’s sister has unexplained investment in terms of section

69 of the Act.

8. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or withdraw any or all Grounds of Appeal as may be advised from time to time.

3. The assessee has also raised an additional ground of appeal as follows:-

1. The Appellant submits that the Notice u/s. 148 and the consequential order are barred by limitation.

The appellant craves leave to add to, amend, alter, modify or withdraw any or all the grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, as he may be advised from time to time.

3.1 We have heard the rival submissions on admission of additional grounds. The Lucknow bench of the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in the case of CIT Vs. Sahara India (2012) 347 ITR 331 held that a legal issue can be raised at any stage but there shall be good reason for admitting the additional ground. In our considered opinion all the facts are already on record and there is no necessity of investigation of any fresh facts for the purpose of the adjudication of above ground. Further we are also of the opinion that the additional ground raised in the present case are purely legal in nature & goes to the root of the matter & therefore these are critical for a fair adjudication. The Hon’ble Madras High Court in the case of CIT Vs Indian Bank (2015) 230 Taxman 635 (Madras) held that Rule 11 of the I.T. Rules makes it clear that the assessee has the right to raise additional ground and if the same is beneficial to the assessee, the same should be considered by the Tribunal.

3.2 Further, the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in the case of Gundathur Thimmappa & Sons vs. CIT, Mysore, reported in (1968) 70 ITR 70 held that when the point raised by the assessee is a point which went to the root of the matter and affected not merely his liability to pay tax but also jurisdiction of the Tribunals and Authorities themselves to subject the amount concerned to tax, the Appellate Tribunal had the discretion to perm