" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘A’ BENCH, BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KESHAV DUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER MA Nos.4 to 6/Bang/2026 [In ITA No.1134 to 1136/Bang/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2018-19 K Gowda & Company, No.3/1, MN Complex Ground Floor, Jnanabharathi Main Road, Nagarbhavi, Bangalore – 560 072. PAN – AAKFK 7403 R Vs. The Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Bangalore. . APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate Revenue by : Shri N Balusamy, CIT Date of hearing : 27.02.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 05.03.2026 O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The assessee, by way of the present Miscellaneous Applications, seeks rectification of the order passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) in ITA Nos. 1134, 1135 & 1136/Bang/2025 vide order dated 18 December 2025 on account of a mistake apparent from the record within the meaning of section 254(2) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.4 - 6/Bang/2025 Page 2 of 4 . 2. In the Miscellaneous Applications, the assessee submitted that specific grounds were raised in the memorandum of appeals before the Tribunal relating to (i) disallowance on account of non-deduction of TDS under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in all the captioned appeals, and (ii) in ITA No. 1136/Bang/2025, an addition of ₹2,00,000 made on account of an unproved liability besides the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act. It was contended that these grounds were not specifically adjudicated by the Tribunal in its order by way of a speaking finding. 3. The learned Authorised Representative (AR) further submitted that the assessment years under consideration were unabated years and no incriminating material relating to the impugned issues was found during the course of search. Therefore, according to the assessee, no addition was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case. 4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) could not controvert the submissions advanced by the learned AR for the assessee. 5. We have heard the rival submissions of both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Admittedly, there is no specific discussion in the Tribunal’s order qua the issues raised by the assessee in the present Miscellaneous Applications. However, it is pertinent to note that the appeals of the assessee were allowed in its favour after recording a categorical finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search with respect to the additions made by the authorities below. On this reasoning, the appeals were decided in favour of the assessee. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.4 - 6/Bang/2025 Page 3 of 4 . 5.1 Thus, though there was no specific adjudication of the individual grounds relating to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act and the addition of ₹2,00,000 on account of unproved liability in ITA No. 1136/Bang/2025, the ultimate decision of the Tribunal covered these issues as well, in view of the finding that no incriminating material was found. 5.2 However, to avoid any ambiguity in future and in the interest of justice and fair play, we deem it appropriate to insert the following paragraph immediately after paragraph 11.12 of the Tribunal’s order dated 18 December 2025: “The issues raised by the assessee in the grounds of appeal relating to disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act in all the captioned appeals and the addition of ₹2,00,000 on account of unproved liability in ITA No. 1136/Bang/2025 besides the disallowance under section 40(a)(ia) of the Act do not require separate adjudication in view of our finding that no incriminating material was found during the course of search pertaining to additions in dispute. In the absence of any incriminating material, the additions made by the Revenue are not sustainable in law. Accordingly, the same are deleted and the respective grounds of appeal of the assessee stand allowed.” 5.3 The above paragraph shall form part of and be read in conjunction with the original order of the Tribunal dated 18 December 2025. Hence, the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Printed from counselvise.com MA No.4 - 6/Bang/2025 Page 4 of 4 . 6. In the result, all the Miscellaneous Applications filed by the assessee are allowed. Order pronounced in court on 5th day of March, 2026 Sd/- Sd/- (KESHAV DUBEY) (WASEEM AHMED) Judicial Member Accountant Member Bangalore Dated, 5th March, 2026 / vms / Copy to: 1. The Applicant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT(A) 5. The DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard file By order Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Bangalore Printed from counselvise.com "