DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, GUNTUR vs. APOORVA SAROVAR, KURNOOL

ITA 181/VIZ/2025Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 April 2026AY 2018-1937 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision to delete the addition of Rs. 3,10,09,614/-, finding no merit in taxing it in the hands of the firm when it was offered by the partners in their individual capacity. The appeal by the Revenue was dismissed.

What were the facts?

During a survey operation, unaccounted receipts of Rs. 3,46,24,374/- were unearthed. The Assessing Officer made an addition based on this, but the CIT(A) restricted it to 12% profit. The CIT(A) also deleted an addition of Rs. 3,10,09,614/- related to amounts collected for unsold flats, holding it was offered by partners individually.

What were the issues?

Whether additional receipts offered by partners in their individual capacity for unsold flats should be taxed in the hands of the firm. Whether the CIT(A) erred in estimating profit at 12% on unadmitted receipts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 133A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(9)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM “DB” BENCH : VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA

Hearing: 18.03.2026Pronounced: 17.04.2026

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, V.P. :

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the Order dated 29.01.2025 of the learned CIT(A), Visakhapatnam-3, for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. The Revenue has raised various grounds. However, the effective grounds from 1 to 11 are as under:

2 ITA.No.181/VIZ./2025 1. “The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is erroneous both on the facts and in law.

2.

The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in estimating the profit @ 12% on the total un-admitted receipts of Rs.3,46,24,374/-.

3.

The Ld. CIT(A) is erred in not considering the fact that the assessee could not prove the expenditure corresponding to the un-admit

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 133A

All 5,893 judgments and leading authorities on Section 133A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →