BURRI VENKATA SUBBA RAO,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

ITA 516/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 September 2026AY 2023-2417 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the addition of Rs. 29,66,619/- claimed to belong to M/s SVS Projects India Private Limited. The Tribunal found that the assessee failed to discharge the onus under Section 292C(1) to rebut the presumption that the seized cash belonged to him. The assessee did not provide cogent documentary evidence to establish the source of this amount, and the reliance on the judgment in Pr. CIT (Central)-2 vs. M/s Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. was found to be distinguishable on facts. The Tribunal also upheld the addition of Rs. 23,63,497/- claimed by Smt. B. Vijayakumari. The Tribunal noted that the assessee never stated in his Section 132(4) statements that any part of the cash belonged to his wife, and the subsequent claim raised by her, though supported by a confirmation, lacked credible documentary evidence such as cash withdrawals or other proof of availability of funds. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s view that this unsubstantiated claim could not be accepted. Consequently, the addition of Rs. 63,35,316/- sustained by the CIT(A) was upheld. The issue regarding the approval under Section 148B was not explicitly decided but was implicitly rejected by upholding the assessment order.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Burri Venkata Subba Rao, filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A), Hyderabad-11, for Assessment Year 2023-24. The appeal arose from an order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. During a search under Section 132 of the Act on December 6, 2022, cash of Rs. 1 crore was found at the assessee's residence. The assessee initially claimed the cash was for employee distribution at an annual event. Subsequently, he claimed portions belonged to his wife, Smt. B. Vijaya Kumari (Rs. 23,63,497), his sister, Smt. V. Kanakavalli (Rs. 10,05,200), and M/s SVS Projects India Pvt Ltd (Rs. 29,66,619). The AO treated the entire Rs. 1 crore as unexplained money under Section 69A, leading to an addition of Rs. 1,68,25,630. The CIT(A) upheld additions totaling Rs. 63,35,316.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs. 23,63,497/- in respect of cash claimed to belong to Smt. B. Vijaya Kumari is justified on the ground of insufficient sources of income (Section 69A). 2. Whether the addition of Rs. 10,05,200/- in respect of cash claimed to belong to Smt. V. Kanakavalli is justified, despite a confirmation letter, on the ground that no concrete evidence or plausible explanation was furnished (Section 69A). 3. Whether the addition of Rs. 29,66,619/- out of the cash found, claimed to belong to M/s SVS Projects India Pvt Ltd, is justified on the ground that no verifiable documentary evidence was produced to show the cash was from accounted sources (Section 69A). 4. Whether the assessment order passed under Section 143(3) is vitiated due to mechanical approval under Section 148B. Assessee's Contentions: - The cash found belonged to various individuals and entities, not the assessee. - Smt. B. Vijaya Kumari's cash was from her independent sources. - Smt. V. Kanakavalli's cash was part of the seized amount, and a confirmation letter was provided. - The cash belonging to M/s SVS Projects India Pvt Ltd represented unspent money returned by site in-charges. - The assessment order is unsustainable due to mechanical approval under Section 148B. - Relied on the judgment in Pr. CIT (Central)-2 vs. M/s Nau Nidh Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Revenue's Contentions: - The assessee failed to furnish satisfactory documentary evidence to substantiate the source of the cash. - The explanations provided were belated and unsubstantiated. - The CIT(A) rightly upheld the additions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 69A,Section 292C(1),Section 148B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri K Prasad, SR-AR

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A), Hyderabad-11, dated 27.12.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for ITA 516/HYD/2026 BURRI VENKATA SUBBA RAO

short, “the Act”), dated

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 →