IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year : 2018-19 Shri. D. K. Shivakumar, Vs. DCIT, No.252, “Kenkkeri” 18^th Cross, Circle – 1(4), Upper Palace Orchards, Bangalore.

Sadashivanagar, Bangalore – 560 080.

PAN : AKKPS 1306 F APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : S/Shri. Chandrasekhar and Narendra Sharma, Advocates Revenue by : Shri.Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel.

Date of hearing : 10.01.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 21.02.2025

O R D E R

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member This is an appeal filed by the assessee against Order passed by the CIT(A)-

II, Bangalore, for the Assessment Year 2018-19 vide DIN : ITBA/ALP/M250/2022-23/1063495339(1) dated 27.03.2024, on the following grounds of appeal:

1. The appellate order passed by the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income-tax

[Appeals] – 11, Bangalore under Section 250 of the Act dated

27/03/2024 for the impugned assessment year 2018 - 19, in so far as it is

against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence,

probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case, requires to be quashed.

2. The appellant denies itself liable to be assessed on total income of Rs.

323,49,76,572/- or as may be determined after giving effect to CIT(A) Order, as against the income reported by the appellant of Rs.

3,22,06,675/-, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the order of assessment was passed beyond the limitation period prescribed under the act and hence the assessment is barred by limitation and consequently the assessment order, demand notice and other notices are liable to be quashed on the facts and circumstance of the case.

4. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the statutory notice u/s.143(2) of the act is not in compliance with notification F.No. 225/157/2017/ITA II dated 23.06.2017 which is mandatory format prescribed the CDBT.

5. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not holding that centralisation of the appellant’s case from regular circle to Central Circle is without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case and the assessment order passed by the present assessing officer is without jurisdiction on the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not holding the assessing officer is not justified in passing the Order as the assessing officer as the same officer was part of the investigation team which conducted the search on the appellant.

7. The Hon’ble CIT(A) has erred in not holding that the assessment order is bad in law as the Permanent Account Number on the Order does not belong to the Appellant.

8. The Hon’ble CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the statutory presumption u/s. 292C is on the person from whom search material is found and admittedly nothing was found and seized from the appellant premises and consequently no part of the alleged material can be considered as income in the hands of appellant.

9. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.41,03,600/- by invoking sec. 69A of the act as the sum of money belong to appellant and savings of his family members.

10. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.1,37,36,500/- by invoking sec.69A of the act, since the said amount belongs to one Mr. Sachin Narayan who has accepted it in his sworn statement u/s.132(4) of the act.

11. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the addition of a sum of Rs.6,61,26,000/- by invoking sec.69A of the act, since the said amount belongs to one Mr. Sunil Sharma who has accepted it in his sworn statement u/s.132(4) of the act.

12. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not justified in confirming the invocation of section 69A of the Act in respect of some loose sheets/documents which is contrary to the plain reading of the section and thus all additions in this regard needs to be deleted.

13. The Hon’ble CIT(A) is not just