RUPIKA INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1790/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 August 2026AY 2012-20138 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence due to record seizure. Therefore, a fresh opportunity was granted to the assessee to present its case before the CIT(A).

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in real estate, had its case reopened based on information from a search operation. The Assessing Officer treated share capital and premium of Rs. 23,75,00,000 as unexplained cash credits. The assessee claimed inability to produce records due to seizure by AP CBCID.

What were the issues?

Whether the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from producing evidence and if a fresh opportunity should be granted for adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad

आदेश / ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 12. Hyderabad, dated 12.08.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2012-13.

2.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is a private limited company engaged in the business of real estate. The assessee filed its return of income for the A.Y. 2012-13 electronically on 27.12.2012 admitting total income at Nil. Subsequently, on the basis of information emanating from the search and seizure operation conducted in the Agri Gold Group, the case of the assessee was reopened by issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. In response, the assessee requested the A.O. to treat the return of income originally filed u/s 139(1) of the Act as the return filed in response to the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O. issued notices u/s 142(1) and 143(2) of the Act, calling upon the assessee to furnish various details with regard to the share capital and share premium received during the year. After considering the details furnished

3 ITA No. 1790/Hyd/2025

by the assessee and not being satisfied with the explanation offered, the A.O. completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, vide order dated 15.12.2017 by treating the share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.23,75,00,000/- received by the assessee as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and brought the same to tax.

3.

Aggrieved with the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), although notices were issued from time to time, there was no effective compliance from the assessee except filing written submissions. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the assessment order, the written submissions filed by the assessee and the material available on record, rejected the grounds challenging the validity of reopening of assessment and held that the reopening was validly initiated on the basis of information emanating from the search and seizure operation conducted in the Agri Gold Group. The Ld. CIT(A) further held that, the assessee failed to establish the identity and creditworthiness of the investors and the genuineness of the transactions by furnishing necessary documentary evidences in

4 ITA No. 1790/Hyd/2025

support of the share capital and share premium received during the year. Accordingly, the Ld. CIT(A) upheld the action of the A.O. in treating the share capital and share premium amounting to Rs.23,75,00,000/- as unexplained cash credits u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and sustained the addition made by the A.O., vide order dated 11.08.2025.

4.

Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal.

5.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Pawan Kumar, C.A., and Ms. Santi Pavan Kumar, Advocate, submitted that, the A.O. completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and made addition of Rs. 23,75,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating the share capital and share premium received by the assessee as unexplained cash credits. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that, the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the authorities below, since the books of account and other relevant records were seized by the A.P. CBCID in connection with the criminal investigation initiated against the Agri Gold Group. Therefore, the assessee was prevented by sufficient cause from

5 ITA No. 1790/Hyd/2025

producing the necessary books of account and supporting evidences before the authorities below. They further submitted that the assessee is now in a position to produce all the relevant records and documentary evidences in support of its claim. Therefore, they prayed that the orders of the lower authorities may be set aside and the matter may be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after providing one more opportunity to the assessee.

6.

The learned Sr. A.R. for the Revenue, on the other hand, supported the orders of the authorities below. However, he fairly submitted that, the issue may be decided in accordance with law on the basis of the facts and material available on record.

7.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the A.O. completed the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 and made addition of Rs.23,75,00,000/- u/s 68 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by treating the share capital and share premium received by the assessee as unexplained cash credits. We further find that, the Ld. CIT(A), after considering the written submissions

6 ITA No. 1790/Hyd/2025

filed by the assessee and the material available on record, upheld the validity of reopening of assessment and confirmed the addition made by the A.O. It is the contention of the assessee that due to seizure of the books of account and other relevant records by the A.P. CBCID in connection with the criminal investigation initiated against the Agri Gold Group, the assessee could not effectively represent its case before the authorities below and furnish the necessary documentary evidences in support of its claim. The learned counsel for the assessee further submitted that the assessee is now in a position to produce all the relevant books of account and documentary evidences before the appellate authority.

7.

Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case, we find that, the addition made by the A.O. is substantial in nature and the assessee has taken a specific plea that it was prevented by ‘sufficient cause’ from producing the relevant books of account and supporting evidences before the authorities below due to seizure of the records by the A.P. CBCID in connection with the criminal investigation. If the assessee is now in a position to produce the relevant books of account and documentary

7 ITA No. 1790/Hyd/2025

evidences in support of its claim, in our considered view, one more opportunity deserves to be granted to the assessee in the interest of justice. Therefore, the issue needs to be restored back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and restore the matter to his file with a direction to reconsider the issues involved in the appeal de novo after providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee and after considering all the evidences that may be filed in support of its claim. Needless to say, the assessee shall cooperate with the proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) and furnish necessary details and evidences in support of its claim. We order accordingly.

8.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 7th August, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (मंजूनाथ जी) (RAVISH SOOD) (MANJUNATHA G.) न्याययक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- Hyderabad, dated 07.08.2026. TYNM/sps

8 ITA No. 1790/Hyd/2025

आदेशकी प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तनर्ााररती/The Assessee : RUPIKA INFRA VENTURES PRIVATE LIMITED, 40-6-21/3, 1ST FLOOR, SURYA TOWERS, M.G. ROAD, VIJAYAWADA-520010, ANDHRA PRADESH 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4), O/O ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE -2(4) AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEER BAGH, HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), Hyderabad. 4. तवभागीयप्रतततनतर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गार्ाफ़ाईि / Guard file

आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER TIRUPATI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.08.11 15:54:32 MALLESWARI +05'30' Assistant Registrar, ITAT, Hyderabad

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →