SUREKHA PASIYAVULA,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 1, BHIMAVARAM

ITA 209/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam19 August 2026AY 2019-206 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal found that the AO had incorrectly considered a redeposit of Rs. 10,50,000/- as a fresh deposit. After excluding this amount, the remaining cash deposit of Rs. 12,50,000/- was explained by the sale of gold ornaments and gifts.

What were the facts?

The assessee did not file a return of income for AY 2019-20. The AO made an addition for unexplained cash deposits of Rs. 23,00,000/-. The CIT(A) confirmed a balance addition of Rs. 8,10,000/- after allowing relief for gifts.

What were the issues?

Whether the entire cash deposit was unexplained, or if the AO correctly identified the amount requiring explanation after considering the assessee's submissions and the nature of the deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 147,Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Pronounced: 19.08.2026

PER SHRI MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“Ld.CIT(A)”], National Faceless

ITA 209/VIZ/2026 Surekha Pasiyavula

Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi vide DIN: ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025- 26/1084577446(1) dated 0

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 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →