ORDER

PER PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE – PRESIDENT

1. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Bangalore (the Ld. Assessing Officer) has filed four appeals in the matter of Shri Lakkanna Durgappa (the Assessee) for Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2020- 21. These appeals challenge the consolidated order issued by the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals – 15, Bangalore (the Ld. CIT(A)), dated 24.10.2025, which addressed all four years collectively. The Assessee's appeals against the Assessment Orders passed by the Ld. Assessing Officer under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Assessment Years 2017- 18 to 2019-20, and under Section 143(3) for Assessment Year 2020-21, were decided in favour of the Assessee. In arriving at this decision, the Ld. CIT(A) relied on the ITAT order in ITA No. 465/Bang/2025 for Assessment Year 2020-21, dated 04.09.2025, concerning Smt. Shantha Alias Shanthamma v/s. DCIT (wife of the Assessee). The ITAT held that no incriminating material was found during the search, rendering the additions made by the Ld. Assessing Officer in the concluded Assessment Orders invalid. Furthermore, it held that even on merits, the additions could not be sustained.

2. Smt. Shanthamma is the spouse of the Assessee. The Learned Assessing Officer has raised a single ground of appeal for Assessment Years 2017-18 to 2019-20, questioning whether, given the facts and circumstances of the case, the Learned CIT(A) was justified in deleting the additions by stating that no incriminating material was found during the search—relying on the decision in PCIT vs. Abhisar Build well Pvt. Ltd.—even when various forms of evidence, such as the seized occupation certificate, the Assessee‘s sworn statement recorded during the search, and newly uncovered details regarding the built- up area and capital gain events, arguably constitute genuine incriminating material within the meaning of section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, the issue is whether the Learned CIT(A) acted appropriately in deleting the addition made by the Learned Assessing Officer.

3. The following succinctly outlines the pertinent facts: The Assessee is an individual, and a search was conducted under section 132 of the Act on 19.02.2020. During this proceeding, it was discovered that the Assessee and his spouse entered into a Joint Development Agreement (JDA) with SJR Prime Corporation Pvt. Ltd. on 17.12.2012, pertaining to the development of a residential property as part of the SJR Plaza City Project. Ownership of the property was held by the Assessee, his wife, and his brother; subsequently, the brother gifted his share to the Assessee. Accordingly, the property was apportioned such that the wife held a 72.2% share, while the Assessee held 27.8%. Pursuant to the JDA, the property was transferred to SJR Prime Corporation, and the Assessee and his wife were entitled to receive 37% of the super built-up area. Additionally, the Assessee has obtained the occupancy certificate for the developed flat. Further, additional Joint Development Agreements were also identified during the search.

4. The Assessee submitted his return ofIncome [ROI] for Assessment Year 2017-18 on 27 October 2017, declaring a total income of Rs. 13,33,70,540/-. This return was processed under Section 143(1) of the Act on 27 March 2019, determining a total income of Rs. 14,09,61,390/-. Following a search conducted on 19 February 2020, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued. The Assessee complied with filing the return of income on 22 December 2020, and a notice under Section 143(2) was issued on 29 December 2020.

5. The Learned Assessing Officer observed that, pursuant to Statement under Section 132(4) of the Act and in response to question no. 22, the Assessee disclosed that construction expenses had not been incurred and agreed to pay the applicable tax. Consequently, Rs. 14.48 crores were added to the Assessee‘s total income. Additionally, Rs. 2,20,20,000/- was included as unallow