SRINIVAS TIWARI,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 1864/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2019-209 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's initial sworn statement under Section 131 of the Act on 24.10.2018 categorically admitted that the cash of Rs. 60 lakhs belonged to him and was to be deposited in his bank account. The Tribunal found no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(Appeals). It was observed that the assessee never claimed the cash belonged to Srinivas Tiwari (HUF) during the assessment or first appellate proceedings, raising this claim for the first time in the set-aside proceedings, which was considered an afterthought. The Tribunal found the explanation of the source of cash, including bank withdrawals, realization from sundry debtors, and business advances, to be untenable. Specifically, no cash book was produced to show withdrawn cash was retained physically, and debtor confirmations lacked supporting documents like sale invoices or stock details. The debtors also failed to respond to summons. The VAT and ICICI Bank certificates only established M/s Raghvendra Traders as an HUF concern but did not prove ownership of the specific seized cash. Therefore, the assessee failed to discharge the onus of satisfactorily explaining the nature and source of the cash. The AO was justified in treating the amount as unexplained money under Section 69A, and the CIT(Appeals) was justified in sustaining the addition. The appeal was dismissed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Srinivas Tiwari, filed his return for AY 2019-20 declaring an income of Rs. 5,01,240. On 22.10.2018, police apprehended two individuals carrying Rs. 60 lakhs cash, which they stated was collected from the assessee's residence and was to be delivered to his office. In a statement recorded by the DDIT (Inv.), the assessee admitted ownership of the cash but could not substantiate its source. The Assessing Officer (AO) treated the Rs. 60 lakhs as unexplained money under Section 69A and determined the total income at Rs. 65,01,240. The assessee appealed to the CIT(Appeals), whose order was initially disposed of for non-prosecution. The ITAT set aside the matter for a fresh decision on merits. In the set-aside proceedings, the assessee claimed the cash belonged to Srinivas Tiwari (HUF), proprietor of M/s Raghvendra Traders, and represented business funds. The CIT(Appeals) upheld the addition after considering the AO's remand report.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 60,00,000/- made under Section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) is erroneous, considering the detailed evidence, explanations, and documentary submissions furnished by the appellant regarding the genuineness and source of the impugned amount? 2. Whether the addition is valid in the hands of the individual assessee, despite submissions of conclusive evidence that the cash belonged to HUF, a distinct legal entity, and that the AO lacked jurisdiction to tax HUF income in the individual's hands? 3. Whether Section 69A of the Act was correctly applied, given the AO's alleged failure to establish the appellant's individual ownership of the seized money? Assessee's Contentions: - The addition is erroneous as sufficient evidence was provided to prove the genuineness and source of the cash. - The cash belonged to Srinivas Tiwari (HUF), a distinct legal entity, and not to the individual assessee, thus the AO had no jurisdiction to tax it in the individual's hands. - Section 69A was wrongly applied as individual ownership was not established. - The assessee provided a complete Cash Flow Statement backed by bank statements of M/s. Raghavendra Traders (Proprietor Srinivas Tiwari HUF), Income Tax Returns, and Debtor Confirmation letters, discharging the burden of proof. - The assessment was completed using the wrong PAN, rendering it invalid. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee's initial statement admitted ownership of the cash. - The subsequent claim of HUF ownership was an afterthought and unsubstantiated. - The evidence provided by the assessee to explain the source of cash was not credible or reliable.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 143(3),Section 250,Section 131,Section 2

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE & SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal, filed by the assessee, is directed against the order passed by the CIT(Appeals), Hyderabad-11, dated 21.10.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 09.03.2021 for A.Y. 2019-20. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

ITA 1864/HYD/2025 SRINIVAS TIWARI

“1. The order of the L

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 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →