SRINIVAS SUBRAHMANYAM KANTHETI,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(3), HYDERABAD

आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B‘ Bench, Hyderabad �ी रिवश सूद,�ाियक सद� एवं �ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद� सम� | Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1976/Hyd/2025 (िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Year: 2023-24) Shri Srinivas Vs. Dy. CIT Subrahmanyam Kantheti Central Circled 1(3) Hyderabad Hyderabad PAN: ANNPK5164F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा�रती �ारा/Assessee by: Advocate Mohd. Afzal राज� व �ारा/Revenue by: Smt. Uppaluri Meena, Sr.AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 10/06/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/06/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Srinivas Subrahmanyam Kantheti (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12 Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 24.09.2025 for the A.Y. 2023- 24. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

treated the cash of Rs.59 lakhs as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act and assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.3,40,48,350/-. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Ld. AO and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT (A), the assessee is in appeal before us. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that the only issue arising out of the grounds of appeal of the assessee is the addition of Rs.59 lakhs made under section 69A of the Act on account of cash found during the course of search. Inviting our attention to para nos. 4 to 4.2 of the assessment order, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had received total cash of Rs.98,65,566/- during Financial Years 2018-19 to 2020-21 from various persons towards execution of additional civil works in flats situated at Valsarwalkam, Chennai. It was submitted that the cash found during search was out of such amounts received by the assessee. The Ld. AR further submitted that out of the total receipts of Rs.98,65,566/-, the assessee had incurred expenditure of Rs.39,65,566/- and consequently earned income of Rs.59 lakhs from such additional civil works. The said additional civil work was completed during the relevant previous year and the resultant income of Rs.59 lakhs was duly offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. It was contended that the Ld. AO had not pointed out any discrepancy in the explanation furnished by the assessee.

However, the explanation was rejected merely on the ground that there was a time gap between the receipt of cash and the date of search. According to the Ld. AO, the last cash receipt was received by the assessee on 31.03.2021 whereas the cash was found on 18.01.2023 and therefore it was improbable that the assessee would have retained the same cash for nearly two years. The Ld. AR also submitted that the Ld. AO had not brought any material on record to establish that the cash received earlier had been utilized elsewhere or that the cash found during search represented any income from undisclosed sources. Therefore, the addition was made purely on the basis of suspicion and conjecture and not on the basis of any evidence. 6. In the alternative, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee had already offered income of Rs.59 lakhs arising from the additional civil works in the return of income and the same had been accepted by the Ld. AO. Therefore, making a separate addition of Rs.59 lakhs under section 69A of the Act amounts to double taxation of the same income, which is impermissible under law. 7. Per contra, the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) relied upon the orders of the lower authorities. It was submitted that the last cash receipt from additional civil works was received during Financial Year 2020- 21 whereas the cash was found during Financial Year 2022-23 after a gap of nearly two years. Therefore, the explanation of the assessee that the same cash was retained throughout the period was not acceptable. Accordingly, it was contended that

the Ld. AO was justified in treating the cash as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. 8. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The solitary issue for our consideration is whether the cash of Rs.59 lakhs found during the course of search can be treated as unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. The assessee has explained the source of Rs. 59 lakhs is to be out of the amount received in cash from various persons during the financial year 2018-19 to 2020-21 on account of execution of additional civil work. The assessee has also submitted that the Ld. AO has accepted the income of Rs. 59 lakhs offered by the assessee on account of execution of such additional civil works. In this regard, we have gone through para nos.3 to 3.3 of the order of the Ld. AO, which is to the following effect:

from any source other than the additional civil works explained by the assessee. The addition has been made solely because the Ld. AO did not believe that the assessee could have retained cash for such a period. On the one hand the Ld. AO has accepted the income of Rs. 59 lakhs offered by the assessee from execution of additional civil work and on the other hand, he has disbelieved the cash remained with the assessee, which has been received on account of such additional civil work. Such disbelief, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of evidence. Suspicion, conjectures and surmises cannot be substituted for proof. In the absence of any concrete evidence demonstrating that the earlier cash receipts stood exhausted or that the cash found represented income from some undisclosed source, the explanation furnished by the assessee could not have been rejected merely on the basis of presumptions. 10. We further find considerable force in the alternative contention advanced by the Ld. AR. In this regard, we have carefully gone through para nos. 4 to 4.2 of the assessment order, which is to the following effect:

Accordingly, we direct the Ld. AO to delete the addition of Rs.59 lakhs. 13. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th June, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 19th June, 2026. Vinodan/sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri SRINIVAS SUBRAHMANYAM KANTHETI Plot No.378, Phase III, Road No.82, Film Nagar, Jubilee Hills Shaikpet, Jubilee Hills S.O, Hyderabad, Telangana - 500033 2 Dy. Cit, Central Circle 1(3), Aayakar Bhavan, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad 500001 3 Pr. CIT – Central, Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order VADREVU Digitally signed by VADREVU PRASADA PRASADA RAO Date: 2026.06.19 RAO 15:15:46 +05'30'