IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Appeal No. Appellant Respondent Year Shri Mohammad Abdul Najeeb, ITA No. H.No. 81, 4^th Cross, 1176/Bang Hussain Garden, 2016-17 The Deputy /2024 MSK Mill, Commissioner Kalaburagi – 585 103.

of Income Tax, PAN: ABCPA3077A Central Circle, M/s. MFT Builders and Bellary.

ITA No. Developers, 1178/Bang No. 81/1, Malgatti Road, 2015-16 /2024 Kalaburagi – 585 106.

PAN: AAWFM4078J Assessee by : Shri Rajkumar Hanchnal, CA Revenue by : Shri Murali Mohan M, CIT-DR Date of Hearing : 19-08-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 25-09-2025

ORDER

PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These are the appeals filed by the assessees challenging the orders of the Ld.CIT(A) – 2, Panaji dated 28/03/2024 and 02/05/2024 in respect of the A.Ys. 2016-17 and 2015-16 respectively and raised several grounds including the legal grounds attacking the transfer order dated 03/07/2018 passed by the Ld.CIT(A) – Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) as without jurisdiction.

2. We will consider the facts in respect of the assessee in ITA No. 1176/Bang/2024. The assessee is in the real estate business and there was a search u/s. 132 on 06/09/2017 and based on the search, a notice u/s. 153A was issued on 14/01/2019 by the DCIT, Central, Belagavi. In response to the said notice, the assessee also filed his return of income. Thereafter a notice u/s. 143(2) was issued and notice u/s. 142(1) were also issued along with the questionnaire. The assessee also filed the response to the said notices. The assessee after receipt of the notice u/s. 153A had disclosed an additional income of Rs. 15,17,078/- consequent to the search action. The assessee disputed the reference made to the valuation officer about the ware house building constructed during the period 2014-15 and 2015-16 on the ground that no incriminating materials were found. The assessee’s case is that the AO in order to get an additional time for making the assessment had referred the matter to the valuation officer. The assessee also objected that the assessment order was barred by limitation as per section 153B of the Act. The AO had also estimated the sale value of plot sold to Dr. Prashant Dharepgol based on the agreement found and seized by the authorities. The assessee filed an affidavit from the said doctor and also explained the value found in the sale deed is correct which was not accepted by the AO and therefore there was an assessment made. The assessee also objected the profit estimated by the AO on the sale of goods. The assessee disputed the additions on the ground that the entire additions are made based on presumption and surmise.

3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR argued mainly on the legal ground that the transfer order passed by the Ld.CIT(A), Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) is bad in law and therefore in the eye of law there is no transfer of the case from the Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) since the Ld.CIT(A) while passing the order on 03/07/2018, proper opportunity was not granted to the assessee. The Ld.AR further submitted that no notice has been issued before passing the order u/s. 127 and also reasons recorded by the Ld.CIT(A), Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) for transferring the jurisdiction from Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) to Belagavi (Belgaum) was not communicated to the assessee, for filing the objections to the same and therefore the said order is non-est in law and based on that, the proceedings could not be initiated by the AO. The Ld.AR further submitted that only from the order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee came to know that there was an order dated 03/07/2018 passed by the Ld.CIT, Kalaburagi (Gulbarga) which was not communicated to the assessee till date and therefore sent representation on 25/06/2024 to the CIT(A) for providing the notice and the order passed u/s. 127 of the Act. Subsequently, the assessee also sent a representation to th