##PAGE1##

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE

AND

SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER

ITA Nos. 2352-2355/Bang/2025 Assessment Years: 2013-14,

2014-15, 2015-16 & 2016-17

M/s. President Siddgrtha Sports Club, The Income Tax Officer,

Sanmarga, 2^nd Stage, Ward-2(4), Siddarthanagar, Vs.

Mysore.

Mysore – 570 011.

PAN: AAJFP6721A

APPELLANT RESPONDENT

Assessee by : Shri V Narendra Sharma, Advocate Revenue by : ^{Shri Subramanian S}, BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT ^JCIT Date of Hearing : 16-02-2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23-03-2026

ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1. These are the four appeals filed by the appellant assessee society

against the appellate orders for assessment year 2013 – 14 to assessment year 2016 – 17 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the reassessment order before the National

faceless appeal Centre Delhi (the learned CIT – A) are dismissed.

ITA Nos. 2352-2355/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 8

2. We first state the facts for assessment year 2013 – 14. The assessee is a non-filer. The learned assessing officer found that despite having the substantial income in the hands of the assessee, the assessee is not filing in the return of income and therefore the proceedings were initiated under section 147 of the income tax act after recording the reasons and obtaining the necessary approval under section 151 of the act. Notice under section 148 of the act was issued on 27th of March 2021. The assessee responded by filing the return of income on 5 May 2021 to a total income of ₹ 36,200. Thereafter the assessment proceedings continued. The learned assessing officer noted that there is a disharmony in the name of the assessee which is mentioned in the income tax return whereas the name mentioned in the deed of the society. The AO is stated that it is incomprehensible. The learned assessing officer further asked the details of various transactions, list of members, the interest received and paid, the loans and advances given, the assessee stated that it has not given any loans and advances, it has not received any interest and not made any real interest to anybody. The only interest that is received by the assessee is from banks. The assessee also stated that it is a mutual concern. The learned assessing officer did not accept the contention of the assessee and denied the benefit of mutuality. Partly so because of the reason that assessee could not furnish the complete details and further there is a mistake in obtaining the permanent account No. of the assessee also. The assessee is stated to be a club registered under the societies registration act but the permanent account No. obtained by it shows that it is a partnership firm. According to the AO the status of the assessee is association of people but according to the permanent account No. it is firm. He further investigated the objects

ITA Nos. 2352-2355/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 8

of this assessee society. On the nature of receipt of the assessee, he noted that that there is payment to contractors, there is a case deposit in savings bank account, purchase of alcohol. The assessee has not furnished the details. Looking at the objects of the assessee, the learned assessing officer noted that activity as to the consumption of liquor finds place in the object of the society though it contributes to 71% of the activity of the club and such an activity of consumption of liquor cannot be stated to be in order. Accordingly, he found that a sum of ₹ 10,775,615 being unsubstantiated receipt of ₹ 90,000, cash deposit of ₹ 1,06,85,615 was treated as unexplained income under section 69A of the act. Further the interest income of ₹ 36,204/– was charged to tax under section 56 of the act. Accordingly, the total assessed income of ₹ 10,811,890

was assessed by an assessment order dated 29 March 2022.

3. Aggrieved with the same the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT – A the assessee submitted that assessee is not a partnership