SURAJ ALWANDI,HUBLI V. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HUBLI

ITA 2079/BANG/2024

AI Insights

Shri Suraj Alwandi, engaged in the business of real estate and a partner in two firms, faced additions to his income assessments for the years 2017-18 to 2019-20 following a search and seizure operation. The additions included disallowances and unexplained investments, which were partly contested and some confirmed by the CIT(Appeals). The Tribunal noted procedural lapses in providing adequate opportunities for the assessee to present his case and evidence, leading to the decision to remand the case back to the AO for a thorough re-examination.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 827722 (ITAT-BANGALORE)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 02-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S SANTOSH KUMAR PATIL; V. VISHVA PADMANABHAN
• Keywords: Additional evidence; Depreciation; Unexplained investment; FORM 26AS
• Section: 153A; 68

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos.2078, 2079 & 2067/Bang/2024 Assessment years : 2017-18, 2018-19 & 2019-20 Shri Suraj Alwandi, No.7, Vigneshwar Nilaya, Arjun Vihar, Gokul Road, Hubli – 580 030. PAN: AQFPA 8804M Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hubli. APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : S/Shri Santosh Kumar Patil & V. Vishva Padmanabhan, CA Respondent by : Shri Kiran D., CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru. Date of hearing : 08.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 09.01.2026 O R D E R Per Prashant Maharishi, Vice President 1. These appeals are filed by Shri Suraj Alwandi (the assessee/appellant) for the assessment years 2017-18 to 2019-20 against the appellate order passed by the CIT(Appeals)-2, Panaji [ld. CIT(A)] dated Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2078, 2079 & 2067/Bang/2024 Page 2 of 5 26.7.2024 wherein as per the consolidated order for all these 3 years, the appeals of the assessee were partly allowed. 2. Therefore the assessee is in appeal before us for all these three years. 3. The brief facts of the case show that assessee is an individual carrying on business of contractor into the business of real estate. He is also partner in two firms as well as Proprietor of one concern. He filed his return of income for AY 2017-18 on 7.11.2017 at a total income of Rs.20,11,460. 4. A search & seizure action took place on 16.8.2018 and notice u/s. 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] was issued to the assessee against which the same return was reiterated. For AY 2017-18 the ld. AO in all made addition of Rs.35,05,117 consisting of 5 items such as disallowance of sundry creditors, disallowance of depreciation, unexplained investment u/s. 69C, unexplained unsecured loan and addition of on-money received. The assessment order was passed on 12.8.2021. Aggrieved with that, assessee preferred appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who deleted the addition of Rs.18,21,904 and sustained the balance addition. Therefore, the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. During the course of hearing before us, the ld. AR submitted that assessee has contested before the ld. CIT(A) that there are no incriminating evidence found during the course of search. It was submitted that as per para 8, there are two small additions which are made by the AO wherein the assessee could not produce any evidence Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2078, 2079 & 2067/Bang/2024 Page 3 of 5 due to short time and therefore the ld. CIT(A) confirmed the addition. It was submitted that for AY 2017-18 addition of Rs.13,83,213 and Rs. 3 lakhs were confirmed as per para 11. For AY 2018-19 a sum of RS.11,75,000 and for AY 2019-20 addition as stated in para 8 were confirmed. It was further stated that there is a difference in Form 26AS and the contract work shown in the books of account amounting to Rs.6,94056 which was also confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity of hearing. It was further stated that the assessee also did not get proper opportunity of hearing before the ld. AO. Therefore it was submitted that proper opportunity may be granted to the asse of explaining these small additions. 6. The ld. CIT(DR) also objected and submits that assessee has been given enough opportunities. He submits that despite the opportunities, assessee did not produce cogent evidence/ bills/ confirmations etc. 7. The ld. AR submits that the assessee has now collected all the evidence to the extent possible and would like to submit. However an application for admission of additional evidences are not filed. 8. We have carefully considered the rival contentions and perused the orders of the ld. lower authorities. We find that the additions confirmed by the ld. CIT(A) for want of bill, etc. is out of depreciation amounting to Rs.8,535, negative cash balance of Rs.59,678 and further sum of Rs. 3 lakhs on account of projects of the assessee for want of evidences. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2078, 2079 & 2067/Bang/2024 Page 4 of 5 9. Further, for AY 2018-19 addition of Rs.75,000 u/s. 68 and Rs.11 lakhs on account of cash credit assessee submits that addition of Rs.75,000 as per para 6.12 of the assessment order, the amount was withdrawn from ICICI Bank of Rs.1 lakh. However, the AO did not give credit for the same and made an addition. With respect to addition of Rs. 11 lakhs, the assessee has received Rs.10 lakhs from Fed Fast Plus and rent deposit from K K Agency for which assessee could not file confirmation. Naturally if the assessee are filled the above addition deserves to be deleted. Therefore, assessee is directed to submit the confirmation. This is also for the reason that the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate the fact which was submitted before us that confirmations were filed before him. It is stated that same was brushed aside without referring to. 10. Further, for AY 2019-20, the ld. CIT(A) did not adjudicate on the addition of Rs.7,71,485 which was made by the AO vide para 11.1 of the assessment order. The assessee has submitted a chart which clearly shows that some of the issues were not adjudicated by the ld. CIT(A) and in some of the cases the additions are confirmed for want of evidence, whereas the claim of the assessee is that in some of the grounds adequate evidences available to the extent were already filed before the ld. lower authorities. Because of these facts, as the additions are small, we find it appropriate to send all the 3 appeals of the assessee back to the file of the ld. AO with a direction to the assessee to substantiate that additions deserve to Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2078, 2079 & 2067/Bang/2024 Page 5 of 5 be deleted. The ld. AO may consider the explanation of the assessee and then decide the issues afresh. 11. In view of the above facts, all the 3 appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes as indicated above. Pronounced in the open court on this 09th day of January, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- ( KESHAV DUBEY ) ( PRASHANT MAHARISHI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT Bangalore, Dated, the 09th January 2026. /Desai S Murthy / Copy to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. Pr. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Bangalore. Printed from counselvise.com "