B M VENKATARAMAN GOWDA L/H OF LATE B M CHANDREGOWDA,KOLAR V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, BANGALORE

ITA 1473/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri. B. M. Venkataramana Gowda, the legal heir of Late Shri B. M. Chandregowda, who filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for the Assessment Years 2013-14 to 2018-19. The appeals were filed following a search and seizure operation on 04.05.2018 and subsequent assessments under section 153A of the Income Tax Act. The assessee challenged the additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO) based on statements recorded during the search, arguing that no incriminating material was found to support these additions. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order due to the absence of the assessee's representation, leading to the current appeals. The Tribunal noted the legal issues raised and the precedents cited by the assessee, leading to the decision to remand the case for a fresh assessment.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712653 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Other Referred Cases: PCIT, Central \\u2013 3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., PCIT, Central IT, New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia, Roshan Lal Sancheti Vs. PCIT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: CHAITANYA V. MUDRABETTU
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Search and seizure
• Section: 143(3); 132; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

"IN INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI. LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Assessment Years : 2013-14 to 2018-19 Shri. B. M. Venkataramana Gowda, (Legal heir of Late Shri B. M. Chandregowda), PWD Contractor, Balasettyhalli, Mudiyanur Post, Mulbagal Taluk, Kolar District – 563 127. Karnataka. PAN : AGBPC 6307 P Vs. DCIT, Central Circle –1, Bengaluru. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri. Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, Advocate Revenue by : Shri. Shivanand H Kalakeri, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bangalore. Date of hearing : 24.07.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 30.07.2025 ORDER Per Bench : These 6 appeals are filed by the assessee against common Order passed by the CIT(A) vide DIN and Orders dated 13.06.2025 as detailed below: 1. AY 2013-14 DIN: ITBA/APUM/250/2025-26/1076993372(1) 2. AY 2014-15 DIN: ITBA/APUM/250/2025-26/1076993527(1) 3. AY 2015-16 DIN: ITBA/APUM/250/2025-26/1076993769(1) 4. AY 2016-17 DIN: ITBA/APUM/250/2025-26/1076993902(1) 5. AY 2017-18 DIN: ITBAIAPL/M/250/2025-26/1076994016(1) Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 17 6. AY 2018-19 DIN: ITBA/APUM/250/2025-26/1076994161 (1) 2. The Grounds raised by the assessee are as follows: For Assessment Year 2013-14: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 17 For Assessment Year 2014-15: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 5 of 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 6 of 17 For Assessment Year 2015-16: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 7 of 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 8 of 17 For Assessment Year 2016-17: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 9 of 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 17 For Assessment Year 2017-18: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 11 of 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 12 of 17 For Assessment Year 2018-19: Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 13 of 17 Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 14 of 17 3. From the above grounds for different assessment years it is clear that the issues raised by the assessee are similar challenging the Order passed by the learned CIT(A) on various grounds. We noted from the grounds raised before ld. CIT(A) that the assessee has raised various legal issues before the learned CIT(A) but for want of representation from the assessee’s side, the learned CIT(A) has passed ex- parte Order and the assessee is before us against the same. 4. Briefly stated the facts of the case are that the assessee filed original return of income. A search and seizure action were carried out on 04.05.2018. Subsequently, the case was centralized vide Order No.54A/PCIT-4/201-19/592 dated 01.10.2018. A notice under section 153A of the Act was issued to the assessee on 24.01.2020. In pursuance to the notice, assessee filed return of income declaring the same income as declared in the original return filed under section 139 of the Act. Notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued to the assessee and subsequently, other statutory notices were issued to the assessee. During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO relied on the statements recorded during the course of search and question and answer Nos.4, 5 and 6 and made addition, and completed the assessment under section 153A of the Act against which the assessee filed appeal before the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A), gave various opportunities to the assessee to represent its case but there was no response received from the assessee’s side. Therefore, learned CIT(A) decided the issue on the basis of the material available on record. 5. Aggrieved from the above Order, assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. Assessee has filed Paper Book comprising of pages 1 to 41. The learned Counsel submitted that the case of the assessee for the Assessment Years 2013-14, 2014-15, Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 15 of 17 2015-16 and 2019-20 were assessed under section 143(3) of the Act. Therefore, no addition can be made for the completed Assessment Year without any incriminating material found during the course of search and seizure action and in support of his arguments, he relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT, Central – 3 Vs. Abhisar Buildwell (P) Ltd., [2023] 149 taxmann.com 399 (SC) and he also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of PCIT, Central IT, New Delhi Vs. Meeta Gutgutia [2018] 96 taxmann.com 468 (SC) and submitted that while framing the assessment under section 153A of the Act for unabated Assessment Year, the AO has made addition which is contrary to the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court. Further, he submitted that statements recorded during the course of search proceedings are not conclusive without the incriminating documents for making additions without finding any concrete material during the course of search. He further submitted that reason for not appearing before the learned CIT(A) was that the assessee did not receive any notice or notices sent might have settled in the spam folder. Therefore, the assessee did not see notice sent by the CIT(A). His intention was not to disregard to the notices isused by the First Appellate Authority. He cooperated in the assessment proceedings and against the Assessment Order, he filed appeal and requested that appeal may be decided on the legal issue raised by the assessee. 6. On the other hand, the learned DR relied on the Order of the lower authorities and submitted that the AO has made the addition on the basis of statements recorded during the course of search as the statements recorded under section 132 (4) of the Act has great evidentiary value as decided by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Roshan Lal Sancheti Vs. PCIT reported in (2023) 150 taxmann.com 228 (SC). After recorded the statements, the assessee has not retracted his statements within a reasonable time. Therefore, the addition made by the AO is correct and he further submitted that the learned CIT(A) has discussed this issue in a very detailed manner regarding the issue raised by the assessee. Therefore, the Order of lower authorities should be upheld. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 16 of 17 7. Considering the rival submissions, the assessee filed appeal against the ex- parte Order passed by the learned CIT(A) and he has argued on legal issue of the case challenging the addition made by the AO as raised in the grounds of appeal and relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court cited supra. On going through the Order of the learned CIT(A), we noted that the issue has been decided ex-parte. The ld. CIT(A) gave various oppourtunities to the assessee Therefore, considering the facts of the case and in the interest of justice and on the grounds raised by the assessee, we deem it fit to restore this issue back to the jurisdictional learned CIT(A) for a fresh adjudication with a cost of Rs.5,000/- for each Assessment Year and assessee is directed to pay the cost to the Revenue before taking up the caseby the learned CIT(A) is directed to give reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee and decide the issue as per law, assessee is directed to represent his case before the learned CIT(A) and not to seek unnecessary adjournments for early disposal of the case. In case of failure, no second leniency shall be granted. 8. In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes. Pronounced in the court on the date mentioned on the caption page. Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated : 30.07.2025. /NS/* Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos. 1468 to 1473/Bang/2025 Page 17 of 17 Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr.CIT4.CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "