DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD vs. SIVA SHANKAR REDDY GANDLURU, HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 316/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 September 2026AY 2018-1920 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, finding no corroborative evidence to link the company's payment to the assessee's property purchase or to treat it as a deemed dividend. The CIT(A)'s deletion of additions was confirmed.

What were the facts?

The Revenue appealed against the CIT(A)'s deletion of additions made to the assessee's income. The additions pertained to alleged on-money payments for a property purchase and deemed dividends.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in deleting additions related to on-money payments and deemed dividends due to lack of corroborative evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 2(22)(e)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

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

For Respondent: CA P.Murali Mohan RAO

आदेश / ORDER

PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :

This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -11, Hyderabad, dated 24.12.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19.

2.

The grounds raised by the Revenue reads as under :

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in holding that there is no corroborative evidence for payment of on-money of Rs.4.05 Cr by the assessee, when the payment of on-money is evidenced by sworn deposition of Renuka Datla and corroborated with cash deposits made by her in bank accounts, cash received in lieu of bounced cheque issued by Sri Veera Reddy (father of the assessee) and cash found in her residence during the course of search conducted barely months after the sale transaction? 2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 2(22)(e) only by considering mere unsubstantiated argument of the assessee that the amount of Rs.1.94 Cr was paid by GVPR Engineers Ltd for purchase of a different property without any supporting demonstrable evidence? 3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made u/s 2(22) (e) of the Act without confirmation from Renuka Datla to the effect that Demand Drafts were paid for a different property and without valid explanation as to why amount so paid was not recovered from Smt Renuka Datla in case of non materialization of transaction till date?”

3 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

3.

The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and a Director of M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited, deriving income from salary and income from other sources, filed his return of income for AY 2018-19 on 13.08.2018, admitting income of Rs. 11,95,12,660/- and agricultural income of Rs. 16,05,747/-. In this case, a search and seizure operation u/s 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted on 02.11.2017 along with group cases of M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited. During the course of search, it was noticed that, the assessee purchased a property at Plot No. 77, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad on 14.07.2017 from Renuka Datla for a consideration of Rs. 14,00,04,000/-. During the search and seizure operation conducted at the residential premises of Smt. Renuka Datla, statement was recorded u/s 132(4) of the Act, on 02.11.2017, wherein in response to question No. 3, she stated that, she had sold a property for a total consideration of Rs. 20,00,04,000/-, but registered the same as per SRO value at Rs. 14,00,04,000/- by document No. 4346 of 2017. She further stated that, she has received amount as per sale deed by cheque and the balance amount has been received in cash as well as demand drafts.

4 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

4.

Consequent to search, the case was centralized and during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O., on the basis of information found during the course of search coupled with the statement recorded from Smt. Renuka Datla, the vendor of the property, called upon the assessee to explain as to why an amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- (Rs. 1,94,00,000/- through demand drafts and Rs. 4,05,00,000/- in cash) over and above the document value towards purchase of the property shall not be added to the returned income as unexplained investments. In response, the Authorized Representative of the assessee submitted that, the assessee has paid an amount of Rs. 14,00,04,000/- only, and no amount has been paid over and above the registered value of the property. The A.O., after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, and also taking note of evidences found during the course of search, including the statement recorded from Smt. Renuka Datla, from whose premises cash of Rs. 2,81,50,000/- was found, observed that the seller, Smt. Renuka Datla, stated that the cash found at her residence was the amount received from the assessee towards the sale of property, and also that Rs. 1.94 crores was received from M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited on

5 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

behalf of the assessee through demand drafts. When this fact was confronted to the assessee, the assessee claimed that, demand drafts given by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited to Smt. Renuka Datla is for purchase of another property, which was not materialized, but the assessee has not filed any evidence like details of property purchased and agreement between the parties, etc. Therefore, the A.O. observed that, the assessee has paid sum of Rs. 6,00,00,000/-, out of which Rs. 4,05,00,000/- in cash to Smt. Renuka Datla for purchase of property, and thus, made addition of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, as unexplained investment.

5.

The A.O. further noted that, the amount of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- through demand drafts were paid to Smt. Renuka Datla directly by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited on behalf of the assessee and when this fact was confronted to the assessee and the company, the assessee claimed to have paid Rs. 1,94,00,000/- for purchase of another property. However, failed to submit any details, including the agreement, if any, from the parties for purchase of the property. The arguments of the assessee that the transaction for purchase of another property was not materialized due to

6 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

difference in family, is also not substantiated. The A.O. further observed that, the amount paid by the company is still outstanding. If at all the claim of the assessee is correct, that the transaction has not materialized, then no prudent business entity to keep money with someone in anticipation of settlement of family disputes of the seller. The demand draft amount paid by the company is matching with the receipts of Smt. Renuka Datla towards sale of property. Therefore, the A.O. observed that, M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited has paid the amount of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- on behalf of the assessee for purchase of the property. Since the assessee is the shareholder holding the 17.83% share capital in the company, the provisions of section 2(22)(e) are applicable and thus made addition of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, 1961.

6.

Aggrieved by the order of the A.O., the assessee has filed an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee had filed detailed written submissions, which were reproduced at para 5 on pages 7 to 29 of the learned CIT(A) order. The sum and substance of the arguments of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) are that the assessee has not paid any amount

7 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

of Rs. 6,00,00,000/-, as claimed by the A.O. for purchase of property from Smt. Renuka Datla. The assessee further submitted that the A.O. has made addition only on the basis of third-party statement, without providing the statement to the assessee for comments and also cross-examination of the person who gave the statement against the assessee. In this regard, the assessee has relied upon various judicial precedents, including the decision of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO, reported in (1981) 131 ITR 597, and the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad, in the case of Zainab Investments Private Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4), in ITA No. 783/Hyd/2020. The learned counsel relied upon the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram, reported in (2007) 294 ITR 49.

7.

The learned CIT(A), after considering the submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant reasons given by the A.O., and also by following certain judicial precedents, including the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad, in the case of Zainab Investments Private Limited vs. DCIT, Central Circle 3(4) (supra) deleted the additions made by the A.O. towards cash payment for purchase of property for Rs. 4,05,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, by

8 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

holding that, the A.O. has made additions only on the basis of a statement of seller. However, the seller did not give any details as to why father of the assessee had issued the cheque instead of the assessee. Further, there is no agreement of sale or any further documents relied upon by the A.O., reflecting that there were cash over and above the amount reflected in the registered sale deeds. There is no cogent corroborative evidence brought on record to substantiate that there are cash payments by the assessee to the sellers. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) observed that, the A.O. erred in making addition towards cash payment for purchase of the property for Rs. 4,05,00,000/-, and also a sum of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act towards payment made by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited to Smt. Renuka Datla, which was claimed to be for purchase of another immovable property.

8.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the Revenue is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

9.

The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Shri Mohan Babu, submitted that the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting additions made by the A.O. towards on-money payment of Rs. 4,05,00,000/-, when the payment of on-money evidenced by sworn deposition of

9 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

Smt. Renuka Datla and corroborated with cash in her bank accounts, cash received after the cheque issued by Veera Reddy was bounced and cash found in her residence during the course of search conducted shortly after the said transaction. The learned Senior A.R. further submitted that, A.O. has not only made addition on the basis of statement of seller, but addition is further supported by evidences which clearly shows that the assessee has purchased the property for Rs. 20,00,00,000/-, whereas registered the property for Rs. 14,00,00,000/- and the difference amount of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- has been paid in cash and through demand drafts from M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited. The A.O. after considering relevant facts has rightly made addition towards cash payment of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- u/s 69 and further addition of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, as deemed dividend, because the assessee is the shareholder holding 17.83% share capital in the company, which paid the amount to Smt. Renuka Datla on behalf of the assessee. The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts, simply sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that the order of the learned

10 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

CIT(A) should be set aside and additions made by the A.O. should be upheld.

10.

The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, on the other hand, supporting the order of learned CIT(A), submitted that the A.O. has made addition only on the basis of statement of seller Smt. Renuka Datla and her deposition without any corroborative evidence to allege cash payments and demand draft payment over and above the value stated in the registered sale deed. The statement of the seller has not been given to the assessee for his rebuttal and also not provided any opportunity to cross-examine the person who gave the statement against the assessee, in violation of principles of natural justice. Further, the allegation of cash payment is not backed by any contemporaneous evidence found during the course of search, except a statement of seller. Further, the A.O. made allegations towards cash found in the residence of Smt. Renuka Datla in her assessment, even though she claims to have received cash from Shri D. Shivashankar Reddy towards sale of property, and from the above it is very clear that the A.O. has not accepted her version of argument when it comes to assessment of cash found at her

11 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

residence during the course of search. Whereas, when it comes to the assessment of the assessee, alleged that the assessee had paid the cash. Further, the demand drafts paid from M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited is for another property, and the same has been explained to the A.O. by filing relevant details of the property and the affidavit of Smt. Renuka Datla and others filed before City Civil Court in connection with a dispute on the property. Although the assessee has explained these facts to the A.O., but the A.O. has made addition only on the basis of statement of seller and made addition u/s 69 and section 2(22)(e) of the Act. The learned CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O., and thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

11.

We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. The A.O. made addition of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- u/s 69 of the Act, as unexplained investment towards alleged on-money payment in cash for purchase of property from Smt. Renuka Datla. The A.O. made addition on the basis of sworn statement of Smt. Renuka Datla during the course of search coupled with the

12 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

cash found in her residence for Rs. 2,81,50,000/- and explanation of Smt. Renuka Datla. According to the A.O., there is a clear evidence in the form of admission of seller Smt. Renuka Datla for payment of on-money of Rs. 6,00,00,000/- and out of which Rs. 4,05,00,000/- in cash on different dates and Rs. 1,94,00,000/- through demand drafts from M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited, a company in which the assessee is a director and shareholder holding 17.83% share capital. The learned CIT(A) deleted the addition made by the A.O. u/s 69 of the Act, for Rs. 4,05,00,000/- by stating that the addition made by the A.O. is only on the basis of statement of seller without there being any cogent corroborative evidence to substantiate that there was cash payment by the assessee to the seller. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under, from para 6.3.3 to 6.3.5.

“6.3.3. In the light of the Hon'ble ITAT decision in the above mentioned case, the facts and circumstances of the present case were carefully examined. The AO had relied upon the statement of the seller recorded u/s. 132(4) of the Act. The seller for Query No.3 stated that Rs. 4,05,00,000/- was received by way of cash (the query and response are reproduced in para no. 6.2 above). In the response there is no mention as on which dates and from whom the cash was received. Further, it was stated that Rs. 1,26,00,000/- by way of cheque was received on 16.06.2017 signed by Mr. G SP Veera Reddy father of Mr. G. Shiva Shakar Reddy i.e appellant and it was also stated that the cheque was bounced and the same amount was paid in cash. However, the seller did not give any details as to why father of the appellant had issued the cheque instead of the appellant. Further, there is no agreement of sale or any other document relied upon by the AO reflecting that there were cash

13 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

payments over and above the amount reflected in registered sale deed. There is no cogent corroborative evidence brought on record to substantiate that there was cash payments by the appellant to the sellers. To fasten tax liability on the appellant AO had not brought on record any independent corroborative evidence to show that there were cash payments to the seller. The statement of the third party i.e. seller of the property was relied upon. In the case of Zainab Investments Private Limited, Hon'ble ITAT held that admission by the vendors that cash was paid by a buyer may have persuasive value but will not have substantive evidentiary value in order to make additions in the hands of the buyer. It was also held that addition cannot be made in the hands of the buyers on the basis of mere statement of third parties vis-à-vis the sellers of theproperty from whom property was purchased. It was also held that in absence of cogent corroborative evidence addition cannot be made in the hands of the buyers as well as sellers of the property. Hon'ble ITAT relied upon the decisions of - (i) Hon'ble High Court of Telangana and Andhra Pradesh in the case of Gajjam Chinna Yellappa Vs. ITO vide order dated 6/11/2014 reported in (2015) 59 Taxmann.com 69. (ii) Hon'ble High Court of Madras in the case CIT VS. S. Khader Khan Son vide order dated 4/7/2007 reported in [2008] 300 ITR 157 (Mad) (iii) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of K.P. Varghese vs. ITO [1981] reported in 131 ITR 597. (iv) Hon'ble High Court of Kerala in the case of CIT vs. Smt. K.C. Agnes [2003] reported in 262 ITR 354. (v) Hon'ble Apex Court in the case CIT, Salem vs. P.V. Kalyansundaram vide judgment dated 14/09/2007 reported in 294 ITR 49. 6.3.4. Further, AO in para no. 2.1.2 of the assessment order has mentioned that during the search at residential premises of the seller i.e. Smt Renuka Datla cash of Rs. 2,81,50,000/- was found and it was stated by her that the cash was received from the buyer i.e. the appellant. In this connection, the assessment order made in the hands of Smt. Renuka Datla was verified. The relevant portion of the assessment ord er dated 24.12.2019 is reproduced below: "6.11 An amount of Rs. 2,81,50,000/- was found during the search & Seizure operation at the residence of the assessee of which Rs.2,75,00,000/- was seized and deposited in PD account on 07.11.2017. The assessee has submitted that the amount was received from Sri Shiva Shankar Reddy towards the property sold to him over and above the registered value, however, she has not produced any evidence like sale agreement, copy of receipt, etc to prove that the cash found at

14 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

the residence is part of sale consideration. Hence, the amount of Rs. 2.81.50,000/- found at the residence of the assessee is treated as Unexplained money u/s.69A of the I.T. Act and added back to the returned income. Addition: Rs.2,81,50,000/-

6.3.5. From the above para it can be noticed that even though Smt. Renuka Datla stated that the cash available at her residence was received from the appellant no evidence like sale agreement, copy of receipt etc., to prove that the cash found was part of sale consideration was produced. The cash was added in the hands of Smt. Renuka Datla as unexplained money. This shows that the statement given by Smt. Renuka Datla is not supported by any credible evidence. There were no documents to prove that the appellant had made payments in cash to the seller. In view of these facts of the case and respectfully following the Hon'ble ITAT, Hyderabad decision in the case of Zainab Investments Pvt. Ltd, it is concluded that the addition of Rs. 4,05,00,000/- cannot be sustained and hence AO is directed to delete the said addition. In view of the above discussion, the grounds of appeal no. 1 and 2 are allowed.”

12.

From the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A), it is undisputedly clear that the additions made by the A.O. is solely on the basis of statement of Smt. Renuka Datla, the seller, and her deposition given at the time of search, but not based on any contemporaneous evidence, including the agreement, if any, between the assessee and the seller, cash receipts for payment of on-money, etc. It is well-established principle of law by the decisions of various courts, including the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. P.V. Kalyanasundaram (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that, unless the A.O. establishes the actual consideration paid by the buyer, the

15 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

allegation of on-money cannot be made only on the basis of loose sheets or dumb documents or even from a statement from third party. A similar view has been taken by the coordinate bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Zainab Investments Private Limited vs. DCIT (supra), wherein it has been clearly held that when a document shows a fixed price, there may be a presumption that it is a correct price agreed upon by the parties, and the allegation of cash payment, if any, should be supported by corroborative evidences. The sum and substance of the ratio laid down by various courts is that the addition cannot be made solely on the basis of third party without any corroborative evidence. In the present case, going by the facts available on record, the addition made by the A.O. towards on-money payment for purchase of the property in cash for Rs. 4,05,00,000/- is not based on any evidence but, solely based on the statement of seller. Therefore, in our considered view, in the absence of any corroborative evidence, if any, the addition made by the A.O. cannot be sustained. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant facts, has rightly deleted the addition made by the A.O. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the

16 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

findings of learned CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the Revenue.

13.

Coming back to addition of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- made u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act, the A.O. made addition of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) as deemed dividend towards payment of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- made by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited through demand drafts and observed that the company has paid sum of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- by demand drafts on behalf of the assessee for the purchase of the property. The assessee has disputed the payment and claimed that the payment made by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited by demand drafts is nothing to do with the purchase of the property by the assessee, and further the above payment is for purchase of another property, and the same is not materialized due to family litigations and other matters pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court pertaining to Smt. Renuka Datla and her daughters. To support their contention, the assessee has furnished ledger account of Smt. Renuka Datla in the books of M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited and affidavit filed before the Chief Judge, City Civil Court in connection with property dispute. The learned CIT(A), after considering relevant

17 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

facts, has deleted the addition made by the A.O. for Rs. 1,94,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. The relevant findings of the learned CIT(A) are as under :

“6.4. In ground of appeal no. 3, appellant contended that the amount of Rs. 1.94 crores paid as advance by GVPR Engineering Ltd. is a different transaction and not related to the payment made by appellant and therefore AO erred in making addition u/s. 2(22)(e) of the Act. The assessment order and written submission made by the appellant have been examined. Smt. Renuka Datla in her statement recorded on 02.11.2017 stated that Rs. 4,05,00,000/- was received by way of cash and Rs. 1,9 5,00,000/- was received by way of DD's. During assessment proceedings, appellant submitted that the company M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd for purchase of another property had paid advance of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- to Smt. Renuka Datla. It was also submitted that due to family litigations of the seller, no formal agreement would be drawn for purchase of the said another property. AO did not accept the explanation of the appellant and since the appellant was holding 17.83% shares in the company M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd. held that the said amount of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- was paid by the company on behalf of the appellant for purchase of the property at plot no. 77. Jubilee Hils, Hyderabad and accordingly treated the amount as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant. During the appellate proceedings, appellant submitted that the said amount was given by M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd. to Smt. Renuka Datla for purchase of another land which is different from the plot no.77, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. Further, it was submitted that the amount is shown as advance given to Smt. Renuka Datla in the books of M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd. The ledger copy of Smt. Renuka Datla in the books of M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd. for the F.Y. 2018-19 is reproduced as below: G V P R Group – 2018-19 D. Renuka Ledger Account 1-Apr-2018 to 31-Mar-2019 Date Particulars Vch Vch Debit Credit Type No. 01-4-2018 TO Opening 1,94,00,000.00 Balance By Closing 1,94,00,000.00 Balance 1,94,00,000.00 1,94,00,000.00

18 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

6.4.1. The appellant contends that the transaction between Smt. Renuka Datla and M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd is another transaction and an independent one and has no connection with the purchase of property by the appellant in the form of plot no. 77, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. The fact that the DD's were issued by the company M/s GVPR Engineers Ltd is not under dispute. The AO relying upon the statement of Smt. Renuka Datla held that the said amount was paid by the company for the benefit of the appellant. However, there is no evidence/document brought by the AO to prove the nexus that the DD's were paid 1. For purchase of property at plot No.77, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. 2. It was paid by the company on behalf of the appellant. 6.4.2. There is no proof to establish that there is a link between the payment made by the company to the seller and property purchased by the appellant. To fasten the liability on the appellant there should be an evidence to show that the company has made payment on behalf of the appellant. AO had relied upon a third-party statement to hold that the said payment by the company can be considered as deemed dividend in the hands of the appellant. During appellate proceedings, AO was required to furnish details of incriminating material if any basing on which the additions made were emanating. In response, AO vide its letter dated 20.12.2024 submitted that the additions were emanated from findings made during search. There was no reference of any seized material in the report. There was no corroborative evidence to make such an addition in the hands of the appellant. Further, as per the books of the company the amount is shown as advance paid to Smt. Renuka Datla.To disprove the books of accounts of the company there is a necessity of existence of cogent corroborative evidence. In view of these facts of the case and respectfully following decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of M/s Zainab Investments Pvt Ltd. the addition on account of deemed dividend of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- is hereby deleted. In view of this ground of appeal no.3 is allowed.”

14.

From the findings of learned CIT(A), it appears that the finding of the A.O. that the payment made by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited was on behalf of the assessee is only on the basis of statement of Smt. Renuka Datla, seller, and her deposition given during the course of search. There is no proof to

19 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

establish that there is a link between the payment made by the company to the seller and the property purchased by the assessee. To fasten the liability on the assessee, there should be an evidence to show that the company had made payment on behalf of the assessee. There was no reference of any seized materials. There was no corroborative evidence to make such an addition in the hands of the assessee. Further, as per the books of the company, the amount is shown as advance paid to Smt. Renuka Datla. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) held that there is no evidence with the A.O. to link payment of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- through demand draft by M/s. G.V.P.R. Engineers Limited to Smt. Renuka Datla and linking the said payment to purchase of the property by the assessee. Facts remain the same. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue failed to bring on record any evidence to counter the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) and to support the case of the A.O. Therefore, we are of the considered view that there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to delete the addition of Rs. 1,94,00,000/- u/s 2(22)(e) of the Act. Therefore, we are inclined to uphold the findings of learned CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the Revenue.

20 ITA No.316/Hyd/2025

15.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed.

Order pronounced in the Open Court on 9th September, 2026.

Sd/- Sd/- श्री विजय पाल राि (मंजूनाथ जी) (VIJAY PAL RAO) (MANJUNATHA G.) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Hyderabad, dated 09.09.2026. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तनर्ााररती/The Assessee : SIVA SHANKAR REDDY GANDLURU, PLOT NO. 81, ROAD NO. 2, JUBILEE HILLS, HYDERABAD-500033, TELANGANA 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), 7TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, 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: 2026.09.09 11:20:04 MALLESWARI +05'30' Senior Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →