RAJESH NAGARAJA RAO JAGDALE,BENGALURU V. DCIT CENTRAL CIRCLE 1.4, BENGALURU

CO 8/BANG/2026

AI Insights

This case involves a series of appeals by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax against various trustees and office bearers of the Dr Devraj Urs Educational Trust for Backward Classes, concerning the assessment years 2012-13 to 2015-16. The core issue revolved around the protective additions made in the hands of these individuals following a search and seizure operation, where unaccounted cash receipts were allegedly found. The Tribunal's decision was influenced by a previous ruling where substantive additions in the hands of the Trust were deleted, leading to the conclusion that similar protective additions in the hands of the trustees should also be deleted. The Tribunal emphasized that the protective additions were made on the same material that led to the substantive additions in the Trust, which were later found to be insufficient for establishing undisclosed income.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 847216 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 23-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: Bangalore
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 04-03-2026
• Other Referred Cases: Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1960
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: C. RAMESH
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Income from undisclosed sources; Document seized; Documents seized; Search and seizure; Loose papers; Opportunity of cross examination
• Section: 132; 153A; 139

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Sl. No. ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT V. RESPONDENT 1. 2427/Bang/2025 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. Rajesh Nagaraja Rao Jagdale, 39/23, Sumeru, 29th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 070. PAN: AEJPJ 9235K 2. 2428/Bang/2025 2014-15 3. 2429/Bang/2025 2015-16 4. 2430/Bang/2025 2016-17 Sl. No. CO No. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR V. RESPONDENT 5. 8/Bang/2026 (ITA 2427/Bang/2025) 2013-14 Rajesh Nagaraja Rao Jagdale, Bengaluru – 560 070. PAN: AEJPJ 9235K The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. 6. 9/Bang/2026 (ITA 2428/Bang/2025) 2014-15 7. 10/Bang/2026 (ITA 2429/Bang/2025) 2015-16 8. 11/Bang/2026 (ITA 2430/Bang/2025) 2016-17 Sl. No. ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT V. RESPONDENT 9. 2432/Bang/2025 2012-13 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. Gumegowda Hanumanthe Gowda Nagaraja, 51, Matru Mandira, Prasanth Nagar, Chikkaballapur – 562 101. PAN: ABNPN 9455G 10. 2433/Bang/2025 2013-14 11. 2434/Bang/2025 2014-15 12. 2435/Bang/2025 2015-16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 2 of 24 Sl. No. CO No. A.Y. CROSS OBJECTOR V. RESPONDENT 13. 12/Bang/2026 (ITA 2432/Bang/2025) 2012-13 Gumegowda Hanumanthe Chikkaballapur – 562 101. PAN: ABNPN 9455G The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. 14. 13/Bang/2026 (ITA 2433/Bang/2025) 2013-14 15. 14/Bang/2026 (ITA 2434/Bang/2025) 2014-15 16. 15/Bang/2026 (ITA 2435/Bang/2025) 2015-16 Sl. No. ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT V. RESPONDENT 17. 2443/Bang/2025 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. Shri J.P. Sudhakar, [L/R of Late Shri J P Narayanaswamy, PAN: AFKPS 0899G] 39/23, Sumeru, 29th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 070. PAN: AATPN 4281F 18. 2444/Bang/2025 2014-15 19. 2445/Bang/2025 2015-16 Sl. No. ITA No. A.Y. APPELLANT V. RESPONDENT 20. 2446/Bang/2025 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. Shri J.P. Sudhakar, [L/R of Late Smt. Parvathamma, PAN: AFKPS 0899G] 39/23, Sumeru, 29th Cross, 7th Block, Jayanagar, Bengaluru – 560 070. PAN: AHPPP 0141F 21. 2447/Bang/2025 2014-15 22. 2448/Bang/2025 2015-16 23. 2507/Bang/2025 2013-14 The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(4), Bangalore. Ms. Javaragowdanapalya Puttappa Devika, [L/R of Late Shri J P Narayanaswamy, PAN: AATPN 4281F] No.219/11, J P Crop, Bellary Road, Sadashivanagar, Bangalore – 560 080. PAN: CYWPD 1048K 24. 2508/Bang/2025 2014-15 25. 2509/Bang/2025 2015-16 Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 3 of 24 Revenue by : Shri Shivanand Kalakeri, CIT(DR), ITAT, Bengaluru. Assessee by : Shri C. Ramesh, CA Date of hearing : 05.03.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.03.2026 O R D E R Per Bench 1. All these appeals in a bunch of 25 appeals / Cos have common issues. In all these appeals the revenue is challenging the appellate order passed by the learned CIT – A against deletion of the protective addition made in the hands of the assesses because substantive addition is made in the hands of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes [ The Trust] were deleted by the coordinate bench. All these assesses are either trustees or office bearers of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes and are part of same search. 2. We first take up the appeal in case of Shri Gumegowda Hanumanthe Gowda Nagaraja [ the Assessee / Respondent] for assessment year 2012 – 13, 13 – 14, 14 – 15 and 2015 – 16 [ITA No. 2432 – 2435/Bangalore/2025 ] filed by the learned Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle – 1 (4) Bangalore [ the ld AO ] against the appellate order passed by The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore (The Learned CIT – A) dated 22 August 2025 allowing the appeals of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 4 of 24 3. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved and raised following grounds of appeal: –. i. Whether the learned CIT – A was correct in law and on facts in deleting the additions made on account of unaccounted cash receipts/unexplained credits on protective basis, without appreciating that the additions were based on incriminating material is used during a valid search operations and the assessee’s admission of undisclosed income under section 132 (4) ii. whether the learned CIT – A was correct on law in holding that protective addition is made in the hands of the assessee could not be sustained, merely relying on the Honourable ITAT’s order in the case of Sri Dave Raj Urs educational trust for backward classes, when the substantive addition is there in are still pending adjudication before the honourable High Court of Karnataka. 4. The assessee has also filed cross objections in co No 12 – 15 as above. The assessee raised following grounds of appeal. i. The learned AO erred in invoking the provisions of section 153C of the income tax act 1960 one. The CIT – A order in not adjudicating this ground. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 5 of 24 ii. The learned AO erred in invoking the provisions of section 153C of the act despite the assessee himself being searched person. The CIT – A order in not adjudicating this ground. iii. The learned AO erred in not providing to his satisfaction as required by the provisions of section 153C, thus, the order of the learned AO is bad in law and needs to be quashed. The CIT – A order in not adjudicating this ground. 5. The brief fact of the case shows that a search and seizure operation under section 132 Of the Income Tax Act [the Act] was conducted in the case of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes on 6 August 2015. As part of the said search action, the premises of the trust were searched along with premises of all the persons stated above as those were managing the above trust in different capacities, and at the said premises note books and diaries containing information relating to and payments made to Shri Gumegowda Hanumanthe Gowda Nagaraja (the assessee) were found and seized. Further the part of the said such premises of the assessee Shri Gumegowda Hanumanthe Gowda Nagaraja were also searched. At that said premises money and documents belonging to or containing information relating to this assessee were also found and seized. The assessee, Shri Gumegowda Hanumanthe Gowda Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 6 of 24 Nagaraja is the secretary of the trust and is actively involved in running of its day-to-day affairs. He is also involved in deciding the capitation/donation fee quantum and the part that is to be accepted in cash. 6. For assessment year 2012 – 13 assessee filed his return of income under section 19 of the act on 28 September 2012 with a returned income of ₹ 5,481,016/– 7. on an analysis of seized documents found during the course of search from the premises of the Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes [trust ] and also the premises of Shri Gumegowda Hanumanthe Gowda Nagaraja the learned assessing officer noted that these materials and information relating to cash payment made to the assessee and the information contained in those assessment remark relates to the assessee and have bearing on the determination of the total income of the assessee for the assessment year. Therefore, the learned assessing officer recorded the satisfaction under section 153C of the act. 8. While hearing notice under section 153C read with section 153A of the act was also issued to the assessee on 21 August 2017 to file the return of income in response to which the assessee has filed the return of income on 21/9/2017 declaring the same income which was offered under section 139 of the act. Further the notices were issued under section 143 (2) and 142 (1) of the Act. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 7 of 24 9. The learned assessing officer further noted that assessee is the secretary of the trust and is actively involved in running its day-to- day affairs and also involved in deciding the capitation fee quantum and collection of the same in cash. The accounts related to the collection of capitation fee are maintained by one Sri Goli V Srinivasan with the accountant, Clerk, under the guidance of the assessee. From the seized material under annexure A multiple entries were found that from the unaccounted cash generated from capitation fee received by the assessee and certain cash payments have been booked in the name of the assessee. Such cash payments were found to be ₹ 21,993,000 for the assessment year 2012 – 13. The assessee was asked to submit the details of all the form of receipts from the Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes. The assessee did not respond and therefore one more show cause notice was issued to the assessee giving the details of cash received by the assessee. It was also shown that as per the exhibit, names along with the fees have been written and the side of the amount which has been paid according to the seized documents the various amounts paid to the assessee along with the dates were also mentioned. The signature of the assessee was also there on the side of the amount paid. The other trustee of the trust and the brother of the assessee have also confirmed this by putting green mark. The assessee has also signed such paper acknowledging that the payments have been entered correctly. The assessee also admitted the same as his Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 8 of 24 income for various previous year’s including this assessment year. Copies of the seized materials were also given to the assessee. The learned assessing officer held that the above amount of ₹ 21,993,000 is also treated as unaccounted cash receipt in the hands of the trust which is being assessed in the status of AOP in the relevant assessment year on substantive basis. 10. The learned AO further noted that the above addition is being made in the case of the trust Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes substantive basis on the incriminating documents found in the premises of the trust. Since the said premises notebooks diaries entries containing information relating to payment made to the assessee were found and seized, the addition is also being made protectively in the hands of the assessee. The assessee also admitted the same as his income for various previous year’s including this assessment year. Consequently, this assessee declared an amount of ₹ 800.92 lakhs as income and agreed to pay tax thereon. This amount emanated from the income generated from the property of the said trust and the assessee being a secretary has collected the amounts in that capacity. The assessee also stated that the said amount of ₹ 800.92 lakhs be added to his total income. However as the learned assessing officer opted to treat the above income in the hands of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes substantively, even though the assessee has declared the said amount of ₹ 800.92 lakhs over and above his returned income, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 9 of 24 learned AO treated the same as protective addition in the hands of the assessee. Consequently, the assessment order under section 153C read with section 143 (3) read with section 153C of the income tax act 1961/– was passed on 30 December 2017 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 87,096,250 against the returned income of ₹ 5,481,060/–. 11. Similarly for assessment year 2013 – 14 the total income of the assessee was assessed at ₹ 150,556,848/– against the returned income of the assessee at ₹ 7,525,340/– wherein the addition of ₹ 144,035,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis for this year. 12. Similarly for assessment year 2014 – 15, the assessment order was passed on even date determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 162,927,775/– against the returned income of ₹ 6,764,150/– wherein the addition of ₹ 155,852,000/- was made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. 13. Similarly for assessment year 2015 – 16 the assessment order was passed on even date determining the total income of the assessee at ₹ 342,491,204/– against the returned income of the assessee at ₹ 10,961,410/- making the addition of ₹ 327,568,850/– on protective basis in the hands of the assessee where the substantive addition since made in the hands of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 10 of 24 14. Therefore, it is apparent that for all these four years protective addition is made in the hands of the assessee despite the assessee declaring that income in his own hands, but the learned assessing officer made the substantive addition in the hands of the Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward. 15. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the learned assessing officer for all these four years along with the assessment year 2011 – 12, (which is not in appeal before us) preferred an appeal before The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – 11, Bangalore who passed an order on 22 August 2025 allowing the appeals of the assessee and deleting the additions made on protective basis in the hands of these assesses.. 16. Before the learned CIT – A, the assessee contested that the addition has been made in the hands of this assessee on protective basis only on the basis of letter dated 20 December 2017 filed by the assessee declaring that the impugned sum is the income of the assessee for safeguarding the interest of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes. It was also the case of the assessee before the learned CIT – A that the request for cross-examination of the employee of the assessee trust Shri Goli Srinivasan who has given a statement which was relied upon is denied/ not given. Meanwhile the assessee also challenged that protective assessment can be undertaken only and scenario where there is a lack of clarity as to in whose hands the income is Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 11 of 24 to be taxed. As the assessing officer has taxed the above amount in the hands of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes, the addition deserves to be deleted. 17. The learned CIT – A noted that the addition made in the hands of the trust on substantive basis have travelled to the learned CIT – A who confirmed the addition and assessee preferred an appeal before the coordinate bench who has deleted the substantial addition in the hands of the assessee trust on its merit. Tribunal B bench Bengaluru in ITA Nos.500 to 506/Bang/2020 dated 16.8.2021 as per paragraph No. 181, 182, 183, 247, 248 of the order has deleted the addition in the hands of that trust. She further noted that as per paragraph No. 183 the seized materials were held by the coordinate bench as un-dated, having no acceptable narration and does not bear the signature of the assessee or any other party. Those documents are not in the nature of self speaking documents having no evidentiary value and cannot be taken as a sole basis for determination of undisclosed income of the assessee. The coordinate bench also held that these documents are loose papers and if the revenue wants to make addition on the basis of the same, the onus lies on the revenue to collect cogent evidence to corroborate the noting there in. The coordinate bench also held that the revenue has failed to corroborate the noting by bringing some cogent material on record to prove conclusively that the noting in the seized papers reveal the unaccounted capitation fee/receipts of the assessee. Thus, the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 12 of 24 coordinate bench has held that the impugned addition was made by the learned assessing officer on grossly inadequate material or rather no sufficient material at all and therefore it deserves to be deleted. In the end the learned CIT – A held that the tribunal has categorically held that the addition made substantively in the hands of the trust is unsustainable and invalid in law, having been founded solely on uncorroborated noting and scribblings on loose sheets of paper, purportedly made by an unidentified person, which lacks any evidentiary value. 18. Further the learned CIT – A held that in view of the substantive addition is made against that trust being deleted is not sustainable on the basis of the said evidence, no protective evidence could have been validly made relying upon the same material. Therefore, following the decision of the coordinate bench in case of that trust, the addition made of unaccounted cash generated for the assessment year 2011 – 12 to 2015 – 16 in the hands of this assessee were also deleted. The learned CIT – A did not adjudicate on the validity of the proceedings initiated under section 153C, the opportunity of cross examination and other grounds challenged by the assessee. 19. Thus, the addition made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis were deleted by the learned CIT – A. The learned assessing officer is aggrieved and is in appeal before us. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 13 of 24 20. The learned CIT DR vehemently supported the order of the learned assessing officer and submitted that addition has been made in the hands of the assessee on the basis of statement made by the assessee himself surrendering the above amount stating that the amount should be added in the hands of the assessee and not in the hands of the trust. Despite this fact the learned CIT – A without giving any importance to the same, has deleted the protective addition. It was his case that the learned CIT – A should have considered the above evidence and confirm the order of the learned AO. 21. He also vehemently stated that the order of the coordinate bench which has deleted the substantive addition in the hands of the Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes has wrongly stated that that addition has been made on the basis of undated, having no acceptable narration, and without the signature of the assessee or any other party and therefore these are dumb document. He submitted that the assessment order clearly shows that the seized material shows the exact quantification of the amount, the date of the receipt of the cash, the signature of the assessee on that document, further there is another signature of the brother and another trustee of the trust. And in the end, assessee himself has signed the same acknowledging that the payments made have been entered correctly and it is his income. He submitted that these documents speak louder than the words. He therefore submitted that the deletion of the addition in the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 14 of 24 hands of the Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes on the basis of the above analysis of the document by the coordinate bench, could not have resulted in the addition being deleted in the hands of the trustees. 22. He extensively read the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes and tried to point out the fact that addition in the hands of the trust is made on the basis of solid evidences , which are dated, signed, corroborated, accepted by the parties , owned by these assessee, confirmed by the accountant Shri Goli srinivasan and also accepted by the treasurer, Honorary Chancellor, Trustees during search and also filed the confirmatory letters of accepting the income. Those persons have also stated that addition be made in the hands of the trustees and these individuals to save Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes as it is found to have accepted the capitation fees and donation in cash. He also submitted that deletion of addition on the ground that no opportunity of cross examination is given of Mr. Goli Srinivasan, who is accountant working under all these trustees were also the one of the main points of deletion of the addition in the hands of the trust which is indefensible. 23. He further referred to para no 83 of that decision of ITAT which shows that coordinate bench has deleted the addition in the hands of the trust being Rs 60 Crs In the hands of Mr. G H Nagraj, Rs 21 Crs in the Hands of Mr. R L Jalapa, Rs. 11 Crs in the hands of Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 15 of 24 Mr. J P Naraynanswamy and Rs 11 Crs In the hands of Mr. Rajesh jagdale on the finding that these are dumb documents, despite the facts that documents are dated, signed by theses persons, with quantification of amount, another trustee and these persons signing these documents, making statements owning this income just to save the trust. 24. The learned CIT DR stated that: - (i) Documents are stated to be undated, but it is dated, (ii) The documents are unsigned but are signed by the assessee and his brother, (iii) These are dumb documents, but that document clearly shows the amount of cash received by the assessee, from whom it is received, and further signed by the assessee. (iv) Over and above the assessee himself on the basis of the above document has offered the income in his hands. (v) question of cross examination of Mr. Goli Srinivasan does not arise as he was acting under instructions of all these persons, employee of the trust and under control of these persons, no efforts made by them to produce him before Ao but claimed that cross examination is denied. (vi) addition is not on suspicion but on concrete proof which was never denied. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 16 of 24 (vii) name of the students appears on the seized paper who paid cash (viii) statements were relied in part on and ignored in part (ix) the Order of ITAT did not discuss the seized paper at all but merely referred them and rejected when those papers are showing details unaccounted income of the trust and these persons (x) when the persons associated with trust are confirming receipt of money in their statements and in their separate letters but despite this ITAT is negating the stand of revenue without any reason 25. The learned authorized representative vehemently supported the order of the learned CIT – A. It was submitted that when the coordinate bench has deleted the addition on substantive basis in the hands of the trust, there is no infirmity in the order of the learned CIT – A in deleting the addition which has been made by the learned assessing officer himself on protective basis. It was the submission that when the substantive additions have not been sustained on their merit, there is no reason that the protective addition on the same evidence can be sustained. 26. The ld. Authorized Representative also submitted that now the revenue cannot question the sustainability of that decision of the coordinate bench in case of the Trust. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 17 of 24 27. The learned authorized representative further referred to the cross objection filed by the assessee stating that assessee has challenged that assessee is a searched person therefore the provisions of section 153C of the act could not have been invoked in the hands of the assessee. The addition should have been made in the hands of the assessee if at all required to be made under the provisions of section 153A of the act. He submitted that date of search is recorded in the assessment order clearly shows 6 August 2015, the notice under section 153A was issued on 21 August 2017, the assessment under section 153A could have been passed up to 30 December 2018. Further the action of the learned assessing officer of issuing notice under section 153C of the act is dated 21 August 2017. It was submitted that the assessment order should have been passed under section 153A of the act and not under section 153C of the act which is not adjudicated by the learned CIT – A. 28. ITA No. 2427 – 2430/Bangalore/2025 is filed in case of Rajesh Nagaraj Rao Jagdale by the Deputy Commissioner of income tax, Central Circle – 1 (4) (the learned AO) for assessment year 2013 – 14 2016 – 17 against the appellate order passed by Commissioner of income tax (A) – 11, Bangalore dated 22 August 2025 wherein on identical facts and circumstances as in case of other assesses wherein respectively the addition made on protective basis of ₹ 50,020,000, Rs. 4,00,70,000, Rs. 270 lakhs & Rs. 200 lakhs respectively were deleted. Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 18 of 24 29. The assessee has also filed cross objection in CO No. 8 – 11 raising identical grounds as were raised in the case of the earlier assessee challenging the action under section 153C of the act. 30. In this case the assessee was honorary Chancellor in Shri Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes and also the managing director in M/s Jagdale industries private limited. For assessment year 2013 – 14 based on the seized material the addition was made in the hands of the assessee amounting to ₹ 50,020,000 on protective basis and the same addition was also made in the hands of the therefore urge course educational trust for backward classes substantively. For assessment year 2014 – 15, on the seized documents, the addition of ₹ 40,070,000 was made on protective basis in the hands of this assessee and on substantive basis in the hands of Shri therefore urge course educational trust for backward classes. For assessment year 2015 – 16 the addition of ₹ 270 lakhs and for assessment year 2016 – 17 the addition of ₹ 200 lakhs was made on protective basis. 31. On appeal before the learned CIT – A the additions were deleted for the similar reasons as given in the case of Mr. Nagaraj. Therefore, revenue is in appeal and assessee has filed cross objections. 32. Both the parties agreed that the facts and circumstances of the case are identical to the facts of the case of Mr. Nagaraj where on identical basis the additions were made in the hands of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 19 of 24 individual on protective basis and addition on substantive basis was made in the hands of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes. Their arguments were also similar. 33. ITA No. 2443 – 2445 is filed by the ld AO in case of Sri JP Sudhakar legal heir of late Sri J P Narayanaswamy for assessment year 2013 – 14, 2014 – 15 and 2015 – 16 against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) – 11, Bangalore (the learned CIT – A on 22 August 2025 wherein the protective addition is deleted by the learned CIT – A of ₹ 640 lakhs for assessment year 2013 – 14, ₹ 300 lakhs and ₹ 250 Lacs for assessment year 2014 – 15 and 2015 – 16 respectively as the substantive addition is made in the hands of trust were deleted by the coordinate bench. The learned assessing officer has made identical grounds as were made in the case of the other assesses. In this case late Sri JP Narayanaswamy was the trustee and VP of Trust also the managing trustee of Mrs. JP foundation. In simultaneous search, on the trust as well as on this assessee certain incriminating documents were found. Meanwhile the assessee Sri JP Narayanaswamy passed away on 9 February 2017. Sri JP Sudhakar is the legal heir. The assessment order is passed in the name of late Sri JP Narayanaswamy on his legal heirs on 30 December 2017. For assessment year 2013 – 14 ₹ 61,400,000/–, for assessment year 2014 – 15 the addition of ₹ 300 lakhs, for assessment year 2015 – 16 an addition of ₹ 250 Lacs were made Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 20 of 24 in the hands of this assessee on protective basis and similar additions were also made in the hands of Sri they were our jaws educational trust for backward classes on substantive basis. On appeal before the learned CIT – A the addition were deleted for the reason that substantive addition is made in the hands of trust were deleted by the coordinate bench on its merit and therefore as the substantive additions were deleted, the protective addition is also got deleted by the learned CIT – A following the decision of the coordinate bench. Thus, the learned AO is in appeal for all these assessment years. 34. ITA No. 2446-2448 is filed by the ld. AO in case of Sri JP Sudhakar legal heir of late Shrimati Paravathamma for assessment year 2013 – 14, 2014 – 15 and 2015 – 16 against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) – 11, Bangalore (the learned CIT – A on 22 August 2025 35. ITA No. 2443 – 2445 is filed by the ld AO in case of Sri JP Devika legal heir of late Sri J P Narayanaswamy for assessment year 2013 – 14, 2014 – 15 and 2015 – 16 against the appellate order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (appeals) – 11, Bangalore (the learned CIT – A on 22 August 2025 36. We have carefully considered the rival contention and perused the orders of the learned lower authorities. In this case the issue is that the assesses along with Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 21 of 24 backward classes were searched together. All these [ersons are trustees and various functionaries of the trust. During search on the basis of the certain incriminating material found, it was noted that there is receipt of cash in the hands of the trust on account of fees from students. Based on this when assessee was confronted with this, assesses in some cases declared the above sum as his income. However, the learned assessing officer has chosen to make an addition in the hands of the assessee trust on substantive basis and same addition was also made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis. Thus, the assessing officer himself for reasons best known to him has chosen to make the addition in the hands of the assessee on protective basis stating that substantive addition has been made in the hands of the trust. On appeal before the coordinate bench, the addition got deleted on substantive basis in the hands of the assessee Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes trust wherein the coordinate bench held that the addition was made on the basis of undated, unsigned and uncorroborated evidence. Thus, as the substantive addition has been deleted in the hands of the trust, there is no reason that the protective addition should continue in the hands of the assessee. 37. When the assessee has disclosed the income in his own hands and has repeatedly stated before the assessing officer to make an addition in the hands of the assessee only, to save the trust, the assessing officer has chosen to make the addition in the hands of Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 22 of 24 the assessee on protective basis. Therefore, now no fault can be found with the order of the learned CIT – A who held that after the substantive addition is deleted in the hands of the trust, the protective addition cannot survive in the hands of the assessee. 38. It is not shown to us that those assessment orders were disturbed by the higher forum in case of this individual assesses by way of revision at all. Thus, the revenue has missed the bus to contend that addition deserves to be upheld in the case of this assessee when revenue itself made in case of these individuals on protective basis. 39. The argument of the learned CIT DR on the ITAT order in the case of Trust does not make any difference in these appeals because the coordinate bench has deleted the addition on substantive basis on these grounds at least at this stage, it has become final. It was also stated that the revenue has challenged the decision of the coordinate bench before the honourable High Court. Therefore, even if these arguments are to be raised, those are required to be raised before the honourable High Court and now the decision of the coordinate bench in the hands of Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes could not be agitated or questioned before us. 40. Judicial propriety demands that in case substantive addition in the hands of one assessee and protective addition in the hands of other assessee, like these assesses and Trust, appeals must be Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 23 of 24 heard together at all forums. The Revenue has not made such efforts before the ld. CIT (A), nor appealed to ITAT to keep the appeal of Trust pending till these appeals travel to ITAT. Even the order of the ld. AO making protective addition was also not disturbed by revisions, for reason best known to revenue. 41. There is not even a miscellaneous application by the ld. AO, if he is of the view about errors in the order of ITAT. 42. Thus, now getting agitated when locking the stable door after the horse has bolted, is of no use. 43. In view of this we do not find any merit in the appeal of the learned assessing officer against the order of the learned CIT – A who has deleted the addition made in the hands of the assessee on protective basis for the reason that the addition made on substantive basis in the hands of the Dr Devraj Urs educational trust for backward classes has been deleted by the coordinate bench. 44. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the learned assessing officer for all these assessment years in the case of these assesses are dismissed. 45. As we have confirmed the order of the learned CIT – A allowing the appeal of the assessee on its merit by deleting the protective addition, we do not find any reason to adjudicate any of the grounds of the cross objection raised by the assesses, wherever and whoever raised, at this stage. Therefore, all the cross Printed from counselvise.com ITA 2427/Bang/2025 & connected appeals - 25. Page 24 of 24 objections filed by the assessee for all these four years become infructuous and dismissed. 46. In the result, All the Appeals and Connected CO are dismissed. Pronounced in the open court on this 23rd day of March, 2026. Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (PRASHANT MAHARISHI) VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 23rd March, 2026. / Sr.PS / Copy to: 1. Appellant(s) 2. Respondent(s) 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "