KOTTI CHANDRAPRAKASH,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-3(4), HYDERABAD

During the course of the assessment proceedings, the assessee reiterated that the seized cash was already admitted by him as business income in his return of income for the subject year. However, the Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the explanation in the absence of any documentary evidence and treated the cash of Rs.70 lacs as having been sourced out of the assessee’s unexplained money under section 69A of the Act, and after making an addition of the same assessed his income at Rs.1,44,70,200/- r.w. section 115BBE of the Act. 6. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A). The CIT(A) held that once the assessee had already admitted the seized cash as income in his return of income, there was no justification for the A.O to again add the same amount to his returned income. The CIT(A), however, observed that as the assessee had failed to substantiate his claim that the cash represented his genuine business receipts, thus, held that the said amount, though disclosed in the return of income, had to be treated as his unexplained money under section 69A and brought to tax

Apropos the next legal issue, we find that the assessee has assailed the impugned order of assessment passed by the A.O u/s 153C of the Act, dated 04.01.2023, on the ground that the same is barred by limitation under section 153B of the Act. The Ld. AR states that as the assessment was completed beyond 18 months from the date of requisitioning of cash, i.e., on 16.03.2019, hence the same is barred by limitation. In our view, the Ld. AR’s plea is misplaced. As per the mandate of law, in the case of “other person” u/s 153C of the Act, the limitation is reckoned not from the date of search or requisitioning but from the date on which the material seized or requisitioned is handed over to the Assessing Officer of such other person. When the same Assessing Officer exercises juri iction over both the searched person and the other person, the date of recording of satisfaction is treated as the relevant date. The Ld. D.R as per the directions of the bench had produced before us the satisfaction note dated 30.08.2021 recorded by the ACIT, Circle 3(4), Hyderabad, i.e., the common A.O of both Shri. Chandrakanth Varma (supra) and the assessee. As the limitation for framing of the assessment in the 8 Kotti Chandraprakash present case has to be reckoned in terms of the “2nd proviso” to section 153B(1) from, viz. (i). eighteen months from the end of the financial year in which the last of the authorization for search under Section 132 or for requisition under Sectio 132A was executed; or (ii). twelve months from the end of the financial year in which books of account or documents or assets seized or requisitioned are handed over under Section 153C to the assessing officer having juri iction over such other person, whichever is later, therefore, the assessment framed by the A.O vide his order passed u/s 153C of the Act, dated 04.01.2023 is well within the period of limitation. Accordingly, the ground of appeal no. (iii) raised by the assessee being devoid and bereft of any substance is also rejected. 12. Coming to the merits of the case, we find that the assessee had already declared the cash of Rs. 70 lacs as his income in his return of income filed on 31.08.2019 and paid due taxes thereon. Accordingly, we concur with the CIT(A), who had rightly observed that as the separate addition of the same amount would result in double taxation, deleted the same.

Controversy boils down to the solitary issue that survives, i.e., regarding the head under which the sum of Rs. 70 lacs is taxable. On the one hand, the assessee contends that it is his business income, whereas the lower authorities have treated it as his unexplained money u/s 69A. 14. We find merit in the reasoning of the CIT(A), that the assessee had failed to produce supporting evidence such as cash book, vouchers, stock registers, or bank records to establish that the impugned cash arose out of his genuine business transactions. Also, his alternate plea that part of the amount represented gifts and agricultural income is found to be unsubstantiated. We are of a firm conviction that a mere declaration in the return of income cannot by itself establish the true nature of the income. Hence, in absence of any corroborative evidence, the aforesaid amount of Rs. 70 lacs (supra) that was initially seized by the police from Shri Chandrakanth Varma, i.e., the assessee’s employee, and was thereafter owned by the assessee, in our view has rightly been held by the authorities below as the assesee’s unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, uphold the order of the ld. CIT(A), who had held that though a separate addition of Rs. 70 lacs (supra) cannot be made over and above the assessee’s returned income, but the said income already declared in the return of income is to be assessed as unexplained u/s 69A and subjected to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. 16. In the result, the appeal of the assessee, being devoid of any substance, is dismissed. 17. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced U/Rule 34(4) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963 on 30th September, 2025. (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सद˟/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) Ɋाियक सद˟/JUDICIAL MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 30.09.2025. #**L.Rama /SPS

िनधाŊįरती/The Assessee : Shri Kotti Chandraprakash, 15-6-12, Siddimber Bazar, Hyderabad 2. राजˢ/ The Revenue : The DCIT, Central Circle-3(4), Hyderabad 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Hyderabad 4. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गाडŊफ़ाईल / Guard file