ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI, HYDERABAD

ITA 698/HYD/2022Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad09 October 2026AY 2017-1832 pages
AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s deletion of the addition of Rs. 7,72,04,275/-. The Tribunal noted that the seized material, containing details of payments amounting to Rs. 94,26,862/- (a component of the larger sum), was found from a computer in the office room at the assessee's residence, leading to a prima facie presumption that the documents belonged to the business concerns of the assessee's family. The assessee's Authorized Representative (AR) submitted a confirmation letter from M/s. Rithwik Projects Ltd. stating that the loose sheets pertained to the company and that the payments of Rs. 94,26,862/- were made by the company. The CIT(A) observed that M/s. Rithwik Projects Ltd. had incorporated these individual expenditure entries into its books of accounts. Since the payments were recorded by the company in its books, the addition could not be sustained in the hands of the assessee. Therefore, the AO was directed to delete the addition. The Tribunal found no error in the CIT(A)'s order for AY 2017-2018 and upheld it. Consequently, the Revenue's appeal for AY 2018-2019 (ITA No. 699/Hyd/2022) was dismissed. The cross-objections filed by the assessee were dismissed as academic and infructuous due to the dismissal of the Revenue's appeals and inordinate delay without reasonable cause.

What were the facts?

The Revenue filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for assessment years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019, deleting additions made by the Assessing Officer (AO). The assessee, an individual, had income declared as Rs. 8,59,030/- for AY 2017-2018. A search under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, was conducted on October 12, 2018, in the Rithwik group of cases, including the assessee. The AO issued a notice under section 153A, and the assessee filed a revised return declaring the same income. The AO made additions based on loose sheets found from a computer at the assessee's residence, categorizing them as unexplained expenditure for gold purchase (Rs. 60,75,000/-) and other payments (Rs. 7,72,04,274/-). The CIT(A) deleted both additions. The Revenue's appeal primarily concerns the deletion of the Rs. 7,72,04,275/- addition.

What were the issues?

1. Whether, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer based on seized documents on account of cash expenditure for various payments, amounting to Rs. 7,72,04,275/- (turning on Section 132 and Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961)? Assessee's contention: The assessee denied ownership of the loose sheets and contended that the payments mentioned therein pertained to M/s. Rithwik Projects (P) Ltd. and were accounted for in its books. The addition was made on presumption without concrete evidence. Revenue's contention: The Revenue argued that the seized material was found from the assessee's computer, thus presumptively belonging to the assessee and its contents being true as per Section 132(4A) read with Section 292C. The assessee failed to substantiate that the expenditure was incurred by M/s. Rithwik Projects Pvt. Ltd. The ledger extracts produced by the assessee contained only journal entries, not proof of actual payment by the company. The CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition by accepting the assessee's claim without proper substantiation.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 132,Section 153A,Section 132(4A),Section 292C

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ", हैदराबाद INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, HYDERABAD A-BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos.698 & 699/HYD/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 ACIT, CENTRAL CHINTHAKUNTA CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD-500033, HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA TELANGANA अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ" Respondent Cross Objection No.24 and 25/Hyd./2025 Arising out of ITA Nos.698 & 699/HYD/2022 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 ACIT, CENTRAL CHINTHAKUNTA CIRCLE-2(2) HYDERABAD-500033, BASHEERBAGH, TELANGANA HYDERABAD-500004, TELANGANA Respondent Cross Objector

AAYPC5042N Permanent Account Number of Assessee:

ITA 698 & 699/HYD/2022 And C.Os.24 and 25/Hyd./2025 CHINTHAKUNTA RAMESH SRIDEVI

अपीलाथ" "ारा/Appellant SR-AR Ashish Kumar Shukla represented by: ""थ" "ारा/Respondent represented by: CA P Murali Mohan Rao सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of conclusion of hearing: 07.09.2026 घोषणा की

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 →