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

ITA 2066/HYD/2026Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 September 2026AY 2019-2025 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What were the facts?

The assessee, Giridhari Homes Private Ltd, engaged in real estate, filed appeals against orders for Assessment Years (AY) 2014-15 and 2016-17 to 2019-20. The Revenue also filed appeals for AY 2017-18 to 2019-20. During a search operation on April 26, 2018, the Assessing Officer (AO) observed unaccounted cash receipts of Rs. 4,06,86,625/- from flat sales across AYs 2016-17 to 2019-20. For AY 2017-18, Rs. 2,59,25,125/- was identified as unaccounted cash receipts. The AO added this entire amount and an additional Rs. 1,25,00,000/- for wrong expenditure claims. The assessee withdrew the ground related to the Rs. 1,25,00,000/- addition before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) restricted the addition of Rs. 2,59,25,125/- to 25% of the unaccounted cash receipts, relying on a seized document detailing cash expenditure.

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to delay. The assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay of 164 days in filing the appeals, particularly for the 97 days after acquiring knowledge of the orders through recovery proceedings. The Tribunal cited Supreme Court judgments in P.K. Ramachandran, Basawaraj, and Pathapati Subba Reddy (Died) by LRs. to emphasize that delay cannot be condoned on equitable or sympathetic grounds without a satisfactory explanation and that negligence or lack of due diligence are valid reasons for refusal. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed in limine without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The Revenue's appeals were also dismissed, as indicated in the concluding summary. The specific issue regarding the CIT(A)'s estimation of profit at 25% and the consideration of cash sales and expenditure was not decided on merits due to the dismissal of appeals on limitation grounds.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in estimating the profit at 25% of unaccounted income/cash receipts of Rs. 2,59,25,125/- when the addition was based on seized material and admission of additional income by the Managing Director under section 132(4) (Question of law). 2. Whether the Learned CIT(A) erred in not considering the entire cash sales of Rs. 2,59,25,125/- for taxation, especially when documentary proof of corresponding expenditure was not furnished during assessment proceedings (Question of mixed law and fact). Assessee's Contentions: The assessee argued that substantial expenditure was incurred in cash against these receipts for finishing works and amenities. They relied on registered sale deeds showing unfinished flats were sold and a seized document at page 128 of the paper book detailing cash expenditure for FY 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The assessee contended that the Revenue could not rely on one seized document (receipts) while ignoring another (expenditure). Revenue's Contentions: The Revenue argued that the Learned CIT(A) was not justified in restricting the addition to 25%. They pointed to seized documents detailing unaccounted cash receipts and the Managing Director's admission under section 132(4) and 131 of the Act, where he admitted unaccounted cash receipts from flat sales and stated they would be offered to tax. The Revenue contended that the loose sheet for alleged cash expenditure lacked particulars like dates, nature of expenditure, payees, or supporting evidence, and therefore, the CIT(A) was not justified in granting a 75% deduction.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 132(4),Section 153A,Section 143(2),Section 131,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 14,286 judgments and leading authorities on Section 132 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →