ITA/180/2025 of THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, Vs KANVA DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES PVT LTD on 2 July 2026

ORDER

PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU. IN ITA NO. 180/2025 BETWEEN:

1. THE PR. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL, 3RD FLOOR, C.R. BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001.

2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), 3RD FLOOR, C.R BUILDING, QUEEN'S ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. ...APPELLANTS (BY SRI. M. DILIP FOR SRI. RAVI RAJ Y.V, ADVOCATE) AND:

KANVA DIAGNOSTIC SERVICES PVT.LTD NO.2/10, DR. RAJKUMAR ROAD, RAJAJINAGAR, 4TH BLOCK, BENGALURU-560 010. ...RESPONDENT (BY SRI. PRASANNA URALA, ADVOCATE) THIS ITA FILED UNDER SECTION 260 A OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, PRAYING TO ALLOW THE APPEAL AND SET ASIDE THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN ITA

HC-KAR

NO.2233/BANG/2024 DT.03.06.2025 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2018-2019 ANNEXURE-A CONFIRMING THE ORDER OF THE APPELLATE COMMISSIONER AND CONFIRM THE ORDER PASSED BY THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), BENGALURU.

THESE APPEALS, COMING ON FOR ADMISSION, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

Heard learned counsel Sri M. Dilip for Sri Y.V. Ravi Raj for the appellants-revenue and learned counsel Sri Prasanna Urala for the respondent-assessee in both the appeals.

2. The above appeals are filed on the common substantial questions of law, which reads as follows: "1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not considering the extensive and credible corroborative evidence brought on record during the course of search and assessment proceedings to show that the assessee was engaged in suppression of sales?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal was correct in not considering that the unexplained cash which was in possession of

HC-KAR

the assessee ought to have been brought to tax under Section 69A?"

3. The brief facts of the case are that the respondent- assessee was engaged in the business of providing medical and diagnostic services and was subjected to search under Section 132 of the Income Act, 1961 (for short 'the Act'). It is stated that the incriminating materials and information were collected during the course of search and the statement of employees were recorded in the search.

4. It is the case of the appellant that certain admitted amounts were not offered to tax in the returns filed under Section 153A of the Act. Accordingly, a show cause notice came to be issued in respect of above added unaccounted cash, which was due to suppression of sales. Against the order of the Assessing Officer, the respondent filed an appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2017-18 but allowed the assessee's appeal on the additions for the Assessment Year 2014-15 to 2017-18. For the Assessment Year 2018-19, the CIT(A) deleted the addition made on account

HC-KAR

of suppression of sale. However, confirmed the addition on account of cash found as unexplained money under Section 69A of the Act. Being aggrieved by the order of CIT(A) appeal, both the revenue as well as the assessee filed appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, 'A' Bench, Bangalore (for short, "the Tribunal"). The Tribunal, dismissed the revenue's appeal and allowed the assessee's cross objection and appeal. Aggrieved by dismissal of the revenue's appeal and allowing of the respondent-assessee's appeal, the revenue is in appeal raising the above stated substantial questions of law.

5. We have gone through the order passed by the Tribunal. The Tribunal has clearly held that no materials were placed to substantiate the suppression of sales or unaccounted cash. The Tribunal has specifically found that the allegation of suppression of sales is based solely on the statements and there is no corroborative material in support of such statement. The Tribunal also found that there is no unaccounted investment, unexplained asset or expenditure. Material on record would indicate that source of suppressed turnover was disclosed and included in the return. Furthermore, income has

HC-KAR

been taxed, as found by the Tribunal. As there is no material to substantiate the case of the revenue, the Tribunal is justified in allowing the assessee's appeal and dismissing the revenue's appeal. The Tribunal has come to a factual finding and this Court cannot venture into examining or interfering with the said factual finding. As such, no substantial question of law would arise for consideration.

Accordingly, the appeals stand rejected. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23