DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 3(1),, HYDERABAD vs. UNITED DEVELOPER, HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal held that the AO failed to discharge the onus of proving the unaccounted receipts. The AO did not examine purchasers or the author of the seized document and relied solely on unsubstantiated notings without corroborative evidence.
What were the facts?
During a search, incriminating documents were found suggesting unaccounted cash receipts from the sale of commercial complex shops. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions based on these documents, alleging that the cash component of the sale consideration was not disclosed by the assessee.
What were the issues?
Whether additions made by the AO based on seized documents without corroborative evidence are sustainable. Whether the AO discharged the onus of proving undisclosed income.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(7)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Sumati Dayal v. CIT1,967 citing214 ITR 801 · 1995 · SC · Read judgment
- Society v. UOI493 citing394 ITR 220 · 2017 · SC
- CIT v. Kamdhenu Steel & Alloys Ltd.328 citing361 ITR 220 · 2014 · HC
- DCIT v. Sunil Kumar Sharma269 citing159 Taxmann.com 179 · 2024 · HC
- CIT v. Sant Lal154 citing423 ITR 1 · 2020 · HC · Read judgment
- Addl. CIT v. Miss Lata Mangeshkar145 citing97 ITR 696 · 1974 · HC
- CIT v. Lanco Industries Ltd.9 citing242 ITR 357 · 2000 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad
"ित रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.
The present appeals filed by the revenue are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commi
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.
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
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Ashok Singh, Jaipur vs ACIT, Circle-2 Jaipur, JaipurITA 1540/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2015-16
- Hemal Paresh Madeka, Rajkot vs Asst.Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 955/RJT/2026[2020-21]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2020-21
- Venish Vinodray Lalani, Rajkot vs Income Tax Officer, MorbiITA 197/RJT/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed19 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Naresh Chandra Khattar, Agra vs ITO Ward-1(1)(2), AgraITA 475/AGR/2026[2019-20]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dillip Kumar Behera vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of State Tax, Mayurbhanj CircleOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S. Kalinga Paper Mart, Sundergarh vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Kabita Nayak vs. Chief Commissioner, CGST, Central Excise And Customs, KhurdaOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Swastika Ingot PVT.LTD, Sundargarh vs. The Addl Commissioner, GST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Basudev Logistics, Jagatsinghpur vs. Principal Commissioner, CGST And Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026