GIRIDHARI HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED,SECUNDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 2064/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad25 September 2026AY 2017-1825 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee failed to establish a "sufficient cause" for the delay in filing its appeals, amounting to 164 days. Citing Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy, the Tribunal emphasized that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds alone, and negligence, inaction, or lack of bona fides are valid reasons for refusal. The Tribunal found no satisfactory explanation for the 97-day period after the assessee admittedly acquired knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. Consequently, the assessee's appeals were dismissed in limine as barred by limitation, without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as stated in the concluding paragraph of the judgment.

What were the facts?

The Revenue and the assessee, Giridhari Homes Private Limited, filed cross-appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for Assessment Years (AYs) 2014-15 and 2016-17 to 2019-20. For AY 2017-18, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, was conducted, leading to the issuance of a notice under section 153A. The Assessing Officer (AO) observed unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 2,59,25,125/- pertaining to AY 2017-18, based on seized documents and the Managing Director's admission. The AO also added Rs. 1,25,00,000/- for wrong expenditure claims. The assessee withdrew the ground related to the expenditure addition before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition of unaccounted cash receipts to 25% of Rs. 2,59,25,125/-, relying on a seized loose sheet detailing cash expenditure.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit at 25% of Rs. 2,59,25,125/- on unaccounted income/cash receipts when the addition was made on the basis of seized material and admission of additional income by the Managing Director under section 132(4) (Revenue's contention). The Revenue argued that the entire cash sales of Rs. 2,59,25,125/- should be taxed as corresponding expenditure proof was not furnished. The assessee contended that substantial cash expenditure was incurred for finishing works and amenities, and the seized document evidencing expenditure should be considered alongside the document evidencing receipts. The assessee relied on registered sale deeds showing unfinished flats were sold and sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act regarding statutory presumption for seized documents. The Revenue argued that the loose sheet for expenditure lacked particulars and supporting evidence.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 153A,Section 143(2),Section 132(4A),Section 292C,Section 226(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish SoodShri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Ms. Seema Meena, CIT(DR), Shri M.V. Prasad, CA
Hearing: 05/08/2026

Per Bench:

These cross appeals are filed by the Revenue as well as Giridhari Homes Private Limited (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, (“Ld. CIT(A)”) all dated 22.10.2025 for the A.Ys. 2014-15 & 2016-17 to 2019-2

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 132

All 14,598 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →