IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. SOUNDARARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.764 to 767/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2006-07, 2008-09 to 2010-11 DCIT, Vs. M/s. Trishul Developers, Central Circle – 2(2), No.9, Asha Ali Askar Road, Bangalore. Cunnigham Road, Bangalore – 560 103.

PAN : AAAFT 9756 G APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. A. Shankar, Sr. Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Muthu Shankar, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore.

Date of hearing : 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 29.09.2025

ORDER

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member :

All these4appeals are filed by the Revenue against the separate Orders passed by the CIT(A). Since the issues raised in all these appeals are similar, they were heard together and are disposed off by way of this common Order.

2. The assessee filed appeal before this Tribunal on first occasion. The Tribunal disposed off these appeals vide order dated 20.2.2015 dismissing the appeals of the assessee. Against the above order assessee went in appeal before the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court of Karnataka, raising following grounds in ITA Nos.371 to 373/2015 of Hon’ble High Court:

a) Whether the notice issued and assessment order passed in the erstwhile partnership firm was no more in existence (substantial question of law at Para 22 of the modified and additional substantial questions of law)?

b) Whether the assessment order passed is without jurisdiction as the assessment order is passed by an officer who had no jurisdiction (Substantial question of law at Para 23 & 24 of the modified and additional substantial questions of law)

c) Whether the assessment u/s 153A of the Act is invalid in law as neither any incriminatingmaterial was found during the course of search nor any addition was made on the basis of materials seized in the course of search of the appellant (substantial question of law at Para 25 of the modified and additional substantial questions of law)?

d) Whether the order passed under section 153A of the Act is bad in law as the additions are made based on the material seized in the course of search of persons other than the appellant and the assessment ought to have been made under section 153C of the Act (substantial question of law at Para 26(i) and 26(iii) of the modified and additional substantial questions of law)?

e) Whether the search in the case of the appellant is not a valid search and the conditions contemplated under section 132 of the Act have not been complied with (substantial question of law at Para 26(ii) of the modified and additional substantial questions of law)?

f) Whether the addition made of a sum of Rs.11,50,000/- for the AY

2004-05 and Rs.2,14,50,000/- for AY 2005-06 u/s 69C of the Act is unsustainable in law and the presumption under section 292 C of the Act is not applicable (substantial question of law at Para 26(iv), 27, 28 & 29 of the modified and additional substantial question of law)?

3. The Hon’ble High Court vide common order dated 12.9.2022 in ITA Nos.371/2015 c/w ITA Nos.372/2015 & 373/2015 for the AYs 2004-05, 2005- 06 and 2007-08 respectively, set aside the order of this Tribunal dated 20.2.2015 in ITA Nos.1362, 1363 and 1367/Bang/2013 and remanded the file back to this Tribunal for fresh consideration of all the issues raised in these appeals. Hence, these appeals came for hearing once again before this bench.

4. Facts narrated in earlier order of the Tribunal are that the assessee is a partnership firm. There was a search and seizure operation carried out by the authorities u/s. 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as "the Act"] in the case of the assessee on 20.11.2009. Simultaneous search proceedings u/s. 132 of the Act were also carried out in the case of M/s. Gold Finch Hotels Group. Mr. K. Prakash Shetty [hereinafter referred to as “K.P. Shetty] was one of the partners of the assessee and was also a partner in other group entity companies. One Mr. Vijay Bhat,