RAJIV VENKATPATHI GOWDA,BENGALURU V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(1), BANGALORE

ITA 671/BANG/2025

AI Insights

The case involves Shri Rajiv Venkatpathi Gowda, who appealed against the order of the Ld.CIT(A)-15, Bengaluru, which confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer for the Assessment Year 2015-16. The additions included Rs. 8,60,046 as salary income and Rs. 14,82,500 as unexplained credits in the bank account of the assessee. The assessee had not filed his return of income initially, and subsequent searches revealed undisclosed income and assets. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal due to the absence of the assessee and lack of substantial evidence or explanation to counter the additions made by the lower authorities.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 775576 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 12 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-09-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUBRAMANIAN S
• Keywords: Unexplained cash credit; Unexplained expenditure; Unexplained investment; Salary income; Charitable institution
• Section: 69; 234B

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 671/Bang/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Shri Rajiv Venkatpathi Gowda, “Srinidhi”, No. 127, 6th Cross Road, 4th Main, Defense Colony, Indiranagar, Bengaluru – 560 038. PAN: AXIPG4613J Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(1), Bangalore. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR Date of Hearing : 11-06-2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09-09-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of Ld.CIT(A)-15, Bengaluru dated 28/01/2025 in respect of the A.Y. 2015-16 and raised the following grounds. Sl.No. Relevant section (s) of IT/ Act Issue Ground of Appeal 1 Section 17 Salary The learned assessing officer is not correct in adding a sum of Rs. 8,60,046 as salary Printed from counselvise.com Page 2 of 6 ITA No. 671/Bang/2025 against the amount admitted by the appellant to the extent of Rs. 8,60,046 2 17 Salary The learned assessing officer has failed to understand the fact that the appellant has produced bank statements pertaining to credit of salary and addition is made merely on the basis of suspicion 3 56 Unexplained credit to the bank account The learned assessing officer is wrong in adding a sum of Rs. 14,82,500 being credits/ deposits in the bank account of the appellant 4 56 Unexplained credit in the bank account The learned assessing officer has failed to consider the fact that the appellant had provided complete and satisfactory explanation for the credits to the bank account and the same was logical. Inspire of the explanation provided, the learned assessing officer mechanically made the addition. 5 56 Unexplained expenditure The learned assessing officer is not correct in adding Rs. 2,49,505 being insurance premium paid as unexplained credit, since the appellant had sufficient income to make the payment. 6 234A, B AND C Calculation of interest The learned assessing officer is not justified in law in charging interest under Section 234A, 234B and 234C of the Act and further they are not as per the law 7 17,56 others The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend, Printed from counselvise.com Page 3 of 6 ITA No. 671/Bang/2025 substitute or delete any of the grounds at the time of hearing of the appeal. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed his return of income. Subsequently, search was conducted in the case of M/s. MG Charitable Trust on 17/02/2021 in which the assessee is one of the trustee. The assessee’s residential premises was also searched and cash, gold jewellery and silver articles were found and a part of the said items were seized by the authorities. The revenue also found some evidence that the trust was collecting cash from the students for admission to medical colleges but the said cash receipt was not entered into in the books of accounts maintained by the trust. The assessee vide his statement given u/s. 132(4) of the Act had accepted that he had collected cash from the students without the knowledge of the other trustees and accepted to offer the said cash receipts as additional income in his hands. Similarly, the assessee also could not explain the source for the acquiring the gold jewellery and accepted to offer the said value as additional income for the A.Y. 2021-22. Based on the receipt of the records from the assessing officer of the searched party, notice u/s. 153C was issued. The assessee pursuant to the said notice had filed his return of income on 14/09/2022 declaring an income of Rs. 3 Lakhs under the head income from other sources. At the time of assessment proceedings, the bank account statements of the assessee was verified and found that the assessee had received salary from M/s. MG Charitable Trust as the Director, Admission. The assessee submitted that the cash deposit are the salaries pertaining to the A.Y. 2015- 16 which was offered in the return of income filed for the A.Y. 2018-19. The AO not accepted the submissions on the ground that the salary has to be taxed based on accrual basis and not based on receipt basis and also the appointment letter issued by M/s. MG Charitable Trust to the assessee is dated 02/04/2017 and therefore the explanation that the deposits are the salaries relating to the A.Y. 2015-16 was not accepted by the AO. Therefore the AO had subjected the said salary income by making the addition. Printed from counselvise.com Page 4 of 6 ITA No. 671/Bang/2025 3. Similarly, the assessee found that the assessee had credits of Rs. 14,82,500/- for which the assessee submitted that these are all transfer credits but not explained the source for the said credits. Subsequently, the assessee requested to treat this credit as salary from M/s. MG Charitable Trust. The AO verified the bank statements and found that the said credits are not from M/s. MG Charitable Trust and therefore treated the said credits as unexplained investments u/s. 69 of the Act. Similarly, the AO had disallowed the payment of premium to LIC on the ground that the said payment was not made from the bank account of the assessee. The assessee had not objected for taxing the said amount and therefore the said payment was treated as unexplained investment u/s. 69 of the Act. 4. As against the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A)-15, Bengaluru. The Ld.CIT(A) had confirmed the addition made under the head income from salary and also the addition made u/s. 69 of the Act since the assessee had not offered any explanations. Insofar as the payment of LIC premium, the Ld.CIT(A) had allowed the ground. 5. As against the order confirming the additions by the Ld.CIT(A), the present appeal has been filed before this Tribunal. 6. The matter was listed for hearing on 09/06/2025 but none appeared for the assessee and therefore the appeal was adjourned to 11/06/2025. Even on 11/06/2025, none appeared for the assessee and therefore having no other way, we are deciding the appeal based on the documents available on the grounds raised by the assessee. 7. The Ld.DR relied on the order of the lower authorities and prayed to dismiss the appeal. 8. We have heard the arguments of the Ld.DR and also perused the assessment order as well as the order of the Ld.CIT(A). The AO had made the additions under the head income from salary as well as unexplained Printed from counselvise.com Page 5 of 6 ITA No. 671/Bang/2025 investment u/s. 69 of the Act based on the entries found place in the bank statement of the assessee. Before the AO also, the assessee had not substantiated his claim and therefore the AO had treated the said credits under the heads income from salary. Similarly, the other credits of Rs. 14,82,500/- was also treated as unexplained investments since the assessee had not submitted any evidence for the source of the said cash deposits. 9. The Ld.CIT(A) also considered the issue and gave a finding that no explanations were furnished by the assessee and the Ld.CIT(A) also considered the assessee’s acceptance for making this addition before the AO and confirmed the said addition under the head income from salary. Similarly, the addition of Rs. 14,82,500/-, on account of disallowance of income under the head income from other sources u/s. 69 of the Act, the Ld.CIT(A) had observed that the assessee had no explanation to offer for the said credits even during the appeal proceedings. Therefore both the additions were confirmed by the Ld.CIT(A) only for the reason that the assessee had not properly explained the cash credits and in fact accepted the income from salary in the assessment proceedings. 10. Even before us, except the grounds raised by the assessee, the assessee had not submitted any documents or explanations about the cash deposits made into his bank account. Insofar as the income from salary, at the time of assessment itself, the AO sought for an explanation for the said credits for which the assessee accepted that these are all salary and it should be assessed under the head income from salary. To take a contrary view, the assessee had not submitted any other explanations or evidences before us and therefore we have no other option except to confirm the findings given by the lower authorities. Insofar as the other addition of Rs. 14,82,500/- and also the assessee had simply raised the ground without any materials or explanations and therefore we do not find any merit in the ground raised by the assessee insofar as this addition is also concerned. 11. We, therefore dismiss the grounds raised by the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com Page 6 of 6 ITA No. 671/Bang/2025 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 09th September, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (LAXMI PRASAD SAHU) (SOUNDARARAJAN K.) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated, the 09th September, 2025. /MS / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 5. Guard file 6. CIT(A) By order Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "