IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARAJAN K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. and Appellant Respondent Assessment Year

45, 46, 47, DCIT, Shri. D. K. Shivakumar, 48/Bang/2020 Central Circle – 1(4), No.252, “Kenkkeri” 18^th

2007-08 to Bengaluru. Cross, 2010-11 Upper Palace Orchards, Sadashivanagar, Bengaluru – 560 080.

PAN : AKKPS 1306 F

205/Bang/2022 Shri. D. K. Shivakumar, DCIT, 2006-07 Bengaluru – 560 080. Central Circle – 1(4), PAN : AKKPS 1306 F Bengaluru.

Assessee by : Shri. Chandrasekhar, AR.

Revenue by : Shri. Y. V. Raviraj, Sr. Standing Counsel.

Date of hearing : 27.11.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 31.01.2025

O R D E R

Per Laxmi Prasad Sahu, Accountant Member These four appeals are filed by the Revenue against separate Orders of CIT(A) dated 17.10.2019 for Assessment Years 2007-08 to 2010-11 and assessee against the Order of CIT(A) [DIN and Order No.ITBA/REC/M/154/2021-22/1039114500(1)] dated 27.01.2022 for Assessment Year 2006-07.

2. The Revenue has filed common grounds of appeal for all the Assessment Years which are reproduced as under: Grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2007-08: Grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2008-09:

Grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2009-10: Grounds of appeal for Assessment Year 2010-11:

3. Since the Revenue has raised common issues for all the four Assessment Years, therefore, for the sake of convenience and brevity, we are taking the facts for Assessment Year 2007-08 and facts taken in ITA No. 45/Bang/2020 for Assessment Year 2007-08 shall apply mutatis mutandis for appeals in ITA Nos.46, 47 and 48/Bang/2020 for the Assessment Years 2008-09 to 2010-11.

4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that assessee filed return of income on 21.04.2008 declaring income of Rs.1,19,06,720/- and agricultural income of Rs.2,50,650/-. The return was processed under section 143(1) of the Act on 10.11.2009. A search was carried out in the case of M/s. Davanam Group on 02.09.2010 and during the course of search, the material indicating that the assessee has sold development rights to Dinasty Developers in the previous years relevant to Assessment Years 2006-07, 2007-08, 2009-10 and 2010-11 was found and seized which were marked as 13 to 16 containing details like, date of agreement, sale price, 80% payment, premium etc.. The said page numbers 13 to 16 of A2/BJPL/4 and 15 of A/DJPL/10 were scanned by the AO in his order. Consequent upon the search, the case was centralized vide Order dated 03.07.2012 under section 127(2) of the Act passed in F.No.6A/Centralisation/CIT-IV/2012-13 dated 03.07.2012. While this assessment proceeding was in progress, another search under section 132 of the Act in the case M/s. Sobha Developers took place on 10.10.2013 wherein material which indicated that assessee had undisclosed income for Assessment Year 2008-09 was found and seized and the same resulted in reopening of the Assessment for Assessment Year 2008-09. The observations made by the AO (Assessing Officer) for the AY 2007-08 are as under:-

5. In response to the statutory notices, the Authorized Representative of the assessee appeared time to time with supporting material for verification. After examining, the AO noted as under:

6. With the above observation the AO completed assessment, the AO relying on the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of CIT Vs. Krishna Veni Amma (1986) 158 ITR 826 and the premium money noted of Rs.3,48,33,582/- was treated as additional income received at the time of entering into purchase agreement in respect of 20 shops at Madiwala Commercial Plaza during the Assessment Year 2006-07 and the said premium was added as unexplained income for this AY in terms of section 69 of the Act and added into the total income of the assesse, and assessed income at Rs.4,67,40,302/-.

7. Aggrieved from the above Order, the assessee filed appeal and detailed written submissions were also submitted. The CIT(A), after cons