Keelukote Venkatappa Jayaram Vs DCIT (ITAT Bangalore)
The assessee was subjected to assessments under Section 153C for AYs 2011–12 to 2016–17 based on documents seized during a search. However, the ITAT found that the search was actually conducted at the assessee’s own premises, and all incriminating materials were seized from him.
The Tribunal held that in such circumstances, the assessee is a “searched person”, and therefore, proceedings ought to have been initiated under Section 153A, not Section 153C (which applies only to “other persons”). The AO’s classification of the assessee as a “connected person” was held to be legally untenable, as such a concept is not recognized under the Act.
Relying on Karnataka High Court rulings, the ITAT quashed all assessments for AYs 2011–12 to 2016–17 as invalid in law.
However, for AY 2017–18, the addition was based on voluntary disclosure made by the assessee u/s 132(4), and since no contrary evidence was furnished, the Tribunal upheld the addition.
Thus, the appeals were partly allowed-quashed for earlier years and sustained for AY 2017–18.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
1. The Assessee/Appellant has lodged seven Appeals against the Appellate Order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-15, Bengaluru [the Learned CIT(A)], pertaining to Assessment Years 2011-12 to 2017-18, dated 25.09.2025. These Appeals relate to the dismissal of the Assessee’s Appeals against Assessment Orders passed u/s. 153C and 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 31.12.2018, for the Assessment Years 2011- 12 to Assessment Year 2016- 17 and u/s. 144 of the Act for Assessment Year 201718 by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Bangalore [the Ld. Assessing Officer].
