SKANDA INFRA PROJECTS INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KURNOOL vs. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(3), HYDERABAD

First, we take up assessee’s appeal in ITA. No. 518/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2019-2020 and Revenue’s appeal in ITA.No.308/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2019-2020 as “lead” appeals.

The assessee has more or less raised common grounds of appeal in all these appeals. Therefore, for the sake of brevity, the grounds of appeal filed by the assessee in ITA.No.518/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2019- 2020 in the case M/s Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited are reproduced as under:

The Revenue has also raised common grounds for all the four assessment years in the case of M/s Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited and, therefore, the grounds of appeal filed by the Revenue in ITA.No.308/Hyd./2025 are as under:

Brief facts of the case are that, M/s Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited is part of ‘Skandhanshi Group’, is engaged in the business of real estate development, filed its return of income for the assessment year under consideration u/sec.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. A search and seizure operation u/sec.132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted in the case of assessee and it’s group concerns on 05.01.2022 and the last of the prohibitory orders u/sec.132(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was lifted on 08.03.2022 and simultaneous survey action u/sec.133A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was also conducted in respect of related business entities. In the course of the proceedings relating to search and survey operations, certain material was seized/impugned. The seized/ impounded material is in the nature of loose sheets, electronic data, books and documents. Statements from various persons including Sri Suresh Kumar Reddy, Chairman and Managing Director of the Skandhanshi

During the course of search and seizure operations at various premises of the assessee, after analysis of seized materials total receipts as on the date of search was prepared and the total turnover was quantified at Rs.1144 crores for Skandhanshi Group pertaining to financial year 2017-2018 to till the date of search and out of the same Rs.625.95 crores was found to be suppressed sales turnover over and above the transactions admitted in the returns of income filed by the entire group. During the course of search and based on seized material, the assessee group voluntarily admitted additional income of Rs.60 crores in respect of various entities of the group and for 5 assessment years i.e., from assessment years 2018-2019 to 2022-2023. Consequent to the search action and centralization of the cases, the Assessing Officer taken-up the cases for assessment and accordingly notice u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was issued and served upon the assessee on 19.01.2023. In response to notice

During the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer on the basis of findings of the search coupled with the statement recorded from the assessee, called-upon the assessee to explain and justify the difference between the turnover as detected during the course of search vis-à-vis the turnover declared in the returns of income and also require to show-cause as to why the undisclosed income should not be added to the income of the assessee for the year under consideration. In response, the assessee submitted that, the seized material is in the form of loose sheets, disjointed summary sheets/ documents/working with no specific meaningful and supporting details of day-to-day transactions relating to the business. Further, none of the seized material is 9 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. corroborated with any independent evidence. Further, it is evident from the electronic data and accounts seized during the course of search that earlier accounts were maintained manually and also in tally till 2018-2019 and thereafter, shifted to ERP software in 2019. However, there were problems while migrating the data and data got corrupted. This got worsened in the years 2020 and 2021 due to covid resulting in shortage of skilled and professional manpower, high attrition rate, thin attendance, unbridled access to computer systems in various business location of the assessee. The assessee further submitted that, during the course of assessment proceedings, an exercise was done to extract the books of accounts from ERP back-up taken during the course of search. However, it was found that, many of the financial statements like purchase account, sales account, P & L A/c and balance-sheet could not be completely retrieved due to software issues. Further, during the course of search and seizure operation, back-up of ERP data was taken in a pen-drive and in HDD. Further, print- outs and extracts were also taken and seized as Annexure 10 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. ANNX/SIPIPL/OFF/01. The assessee further submitted that, the details of cash receipts as well as cash expenses are available in the seized material which throws light on the fact of the existence of cash transactions. Since, there is no data for day-to-day specific record of cash transactions, either in the seized material, estimation become an inevitable method for computation of additional income. Therefore, considering the overall facts of cash transactions recorded in seized materials for the group as a whole, unaccounted turnover and resultant profit has been apportioned over the group entities on rational basis and such working resulted in unaccounted turnover of Rs. 625.95 crores and net profit of Rs. 58.26 crores which works out to 9.3% of total unaccounted sales turnover.

The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of incriminating material found during the course of search being loose sheets which contains details of receipts and payments of entire group observed that, there are certain entries which have not been entered in the books of 11 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. accounts and as such, the books of accounts maintained by the assessee do not reflect the correct and true picture of affairs of the business of the assessee so as to arrive at the correct turnover and income of the assessee during the year. In view of the above discrepancies, the Assessing Officer rejected the books of accounts in terms of sec.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and estimated the net profit of 14% on turnover disclosed in the regular return of income filed u/sec.139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and further estimated the net profit of 18% on suppressed turnover/ receipts for each assessment year. The Assessing Officer discussed the issue at length in light of relevant seized material and books of accounts maintained by the assessee and observed that, the assessee is not in a position to substantiate the expenditure debited to the P & L A/c by producing supporting vouchers and documentary evidences to establish the admissibility of the expenses associated with undisclosed turnover. The assessee itself submitted that, there are certain expenditure, though, having been actually expended are not vouched for nor any receipts for 12 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. the same can be produced. Further, with regard to undisclosed turnover, the assessee has claimed expenses which have not been completely corroborated with documentary evidences so as to prove that the same are admissible expenditure. It is also to be noted that, the regular administrative and statutory allowable expenses claimed in the original return of income has to be same for disclosed and undisclosed turnover, as no separate establishments are found to allow any additional claim. The non-substantive nature of the claim of expenses towards payments to landlords over and above the registered value also has a bearing on the profit margin of the undisclosed turnover of the assessee. Further, nature of part of expenses not actually attributable for the purpose of business activity which required to be disallowed u/sec.37(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and claim of expenses paid to Commission Agents for marketing sale of flats are appears to be high and not subjected to TDS, which attracts disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, considering the overall scenario including relevant books of 13 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. accounts maintained by the assessee and incriminating material found during the course of search observed that, the profit percentage of undisclosed turnover found during the course of search proceedings should be more than the profit percentage on the turnover admitted in the return of income filed u/sec.139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Therefore, estimated 14% on disclosed turnover of Rs.8,20,95,569/- and further estimated 18% profit on suppressed receipts of Rs.13,83,12,000/- and determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.22,03,07,569/- vide order dated 24.08.2023 u/sec.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The relevant findings of the Assessing Officer are as follows :

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee challenged the rejection of books of accounts and estimation of 14% profit on disclosed 21 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. turnover and also estimation of 18% profit on suppressed turnover. The assessee has filed detailed written submissions on the issue which has been reproduced at para-5 on pages 12 to 50 of the learned CIT(A)’s order. The sum and substance of the arguments of the assessee before the learned CIT(A) are that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards estimation of profit on the basis of loose sheet no.5 which contains receipts and payments of entire group, lacks essential nature of details such as business entity, project, dates, parties and the nature of transactions. The appellant further contended that the said sheet is a ‘dumb document’ with no corroborative evidence to support AO contentions. The appellant further submitted that, the seized material also reflected significant business loss for few years and if we go by the said materials, it can be said that, it is only a dumb document without any information as to suppressed turnover of any entity. The appellant had also brought-out various discrepancies in the ERP data pointing-out that, migration of accounts to ERP software in 2019 was plagued with technical issue. Further, 22 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. the appellant contended that the group has offered additional income of Rs.60 crores on the basis of documents found during the course of search i.e., seized material which contains details of receipts and expenses and also disclosed additional income in the name of various group entities, on the basis of apportionment of turnover and as per the documents found during the course of search, the net profit of undisclosed/suppressed turnover works-out at 9.3%. However, the Assessing Officer considered income from the seized material as sacrosanct, but, disputed the expenditure which is also part of very same seized material on the ground that, it lacks evidentiary value because of supporting evidence and estimated the profit @ 18% on total undisclosed turnover. The assessee further contended rejection of books of accounts and estimation of 14% net profit of disclosed turnover on the ground that, Assessing Officer has rejected the books of accounts without pointing- out any discrepancy in the books of accounts, even though, the books of accounts maintained by the assessee are audited by an Accountant in terms of sec.44AB of the 23 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. Income Tax Act, 1961 by general observation that, in suppressed turnover the profit margin is more, even though, there is no basis for the Assessing Officer to come to the conclusion that, the profit declared by the assessee in the regular books of accounts is incorrect.

The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submission of the assessee and also taking note of certain judicial precedents rejected the arguments of the assessee on the issue of evidentiary value of seized material and estimation of profit on turnover including disclosed turnover and undisclosed turnover on the basis of statement recorded from the employees of the assessee and the Chairman –cum- Managing Director of the appellant- company by holding that, documents found during the course of search clearly shows total turnover of the entire group and also the total expenditure/payments of the entire group. Further, the document found during the course of search also reveals the profit earned by the appellant and other group entities for the relevant period, although, there is no specific details as to the amount of turnover and profit 24 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. of each individual entity. Since the documents clearly shows suppressed turnover and profit of the assessee for the entire group, the learned CIT(A) observed that, the argument that, documents found during the course of search lacks evidentiary value and additions made by the Assessing Officer towards estimation of profit is only on the basis of statement recorded during the course of search is, devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. Thus, rejected the arguments of the assessee.

The Learned CIT(A) further noted that, in so far as estimation of 14% profit on disclosed turnover, it is seen from the show cause notice that, there was no proposal by the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit on the disclosed receipts in the regular books of accounts. As seen from the assessment order, the Assessing Officer concluded that, net profit against disclosed turnover needs to be estimated at 14%. No reasons have been provided in the assessment order. A perusal of the record also shows that, no case has been made-out by the Assessing Officer in respect of any discrepancy relating either to the disclosed receipts or to the 25 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. expenditure booked in the regular books of accounts. It is noted that, the appellant books of accounts, though, rejected u/sec.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, but, the Assessing Officer failed to produce any specific evidence to demonstrate suppression of income on the disclosed turnover by way of booking of unsupported/bogus expenditure against the accounted receipts. The Assessing Officer neither bring on record any comparable case of similar nature to allege that, the net profit declared by the assessee in the books of accounts is on lower side nor justified estimation of 14% profit on disclosed turnover. Therefore, held that, disturbing profit margin on the disclosed receipts is not justified when profit has been estimated on the undisclosed receipts separately by the Assessing Officer. Thus, the CIT(A) has directed the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards 14% profit estimation on disclosed turnover.

Coming back to estimation of 18% profit on undisclosed turnover. The learned CIT(A) observed that, the appellant has disclosed Rs.60 crores additional undisclosed 26 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. income towards profit from suppressed turnover of Rs.625.95 crores which comes to around 9.3% of the total turnover. As can be seen from the working submitted by the assessee, the undisclosed turnover worked-out based on the seized material is at Rs.625.95 crores. Similarly, the unaccounted business expenditure as per the seized material is Rs.567.69 crores. Accordingly, the total net profit derived based on the seized material as presented in the post-search investigation was at Rs.58.26 crores which is 9.3% of an average. It is further noted that, in the assessment order, the Assessing Officer has not recorded any objections against this working of net profit on account of cash transactions in the seized material. The only objection raised by the Assessing Officer is that, the appellant has not substantiated the unaccounted expenditure by independent evidence. The Assessing Officer’s selective reliance on receipts recorded in the seized material and ignoring the expenditure found in the same seized material, is not justified. Since both receipts and expenditure are not completely supported by the corroborative evidence, equal weightage needs to be given to both. Further, the Assessing Officer has adopted 18% net profit on undisclosed turnover, 27 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. without giving any detailed reasoning. Although, the Assessing Officer stated that, normally, the net profit rate for undisclosed turnover is high because of accounting administrative and over-head expenses against disclosed turnover, but, there is no specific reasoning has been given to arrive at the above conclusion that, whether the seized material is also contains regular administrative and establishment expenses. Further, the Assessing Officer made a reference to business payments, attracting TDS provisions and the question of disallowance u/sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short “the Act”], but, failed to give any specific example of any expenditure which can be subjected to provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and also the decision of jurisdictional High Court in the case of Indwell Construction vs., CIT [1998] 232 ITR 776 (A.P)held that, the pattern of assessment under the Act is given by section 29 which states that, the income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 to 43D. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are 28 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. not correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his Judgment. Since, the Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit on undisclosed turnover, which is not on the basis of regular books of accounts maintained by the assessee, application of provision of sec.145(3) is misplaced because, once the seized material contains details of suppressed turnover and profit, then, there is no basis for the Assessing Officer to estimate profit of undisclosed/suppressed turnover. The ldCIT(A) further noted that, although, there is a basis for the assessee to argue that, the estimation of 18% profit is on the higher side, but, the fact remains that, the Corodinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad Benches, Hyderabad in the case of Skill Promoters vs., DCIT ITA.No.628/ Hyd./2022 held that, the net profit on the undisclosed receipts should be estimated at 15%. Therefore, by taking note of relevant facts and also by following the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Skill Promoters (supra), has directed the Assessing Officer to estimate net profit margin of 15% on the undisclosed turnover. The Relevant findings of the ld. CIT(A) are as under :

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee as well as the Revenue are now, in appeals before the Tribunal.

Mr. C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Shri AV Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsels for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in dismissing the grounds raised

Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to lose sheets found during the course of search submitted that, apart from the fact that, the seized loose sheet no.5 lacks evidentiary value, the same is also not reliable when considered in the company of other seized documents. In this connection, he invited to the material seized from the corporate office, at Kurnool, marked as Ann/SIPIPL/OFF/01, containing pages 1 to 6, which reflects net loss worked out, in the case of the main business entity i.e, the appellant-company viz., Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Pvt. Ltd [in short “SIPIPL”]. Thus, the document reflects business loss and to that extent, they are speaking unlike the dumb documents relating to the alleged cash receipts. If these business losses 67 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. are presumed to be true, then, there is no possibility of the assessee being in receipt of substantial unaccounted cash advances. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, the main reason for the Assessing Officer to rely upon the said document is, admission of the assessee undisclosed income of Rs.60 crores towards suppressed turnover. The assessee has considered the said loose sheet with reference to the books of accounts and has arrived at undisclosed/suppressed turnover of Rs.625.95 crores and net profit of Rs.58.26 crores which works-out to net profit at 9.3% of the suppressed turnover. However, going by the said document, there is no basis for the Assessing Officer to go for higher estimation of net profit of 18%. The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant arguments, has simply rejected the ground taken by the assessee on the issue of evidentiary value of seized material found during the course of search.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in holding that net profit rate of 15% as reasonable as against the undisclosed cash receipts from the business by ignoring the peculiar facts of the appellant’s case. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to various documents including loose sheet no.5 submitted that, the total additional income admitted on the date of search is Rs.60 crore. This is against the quantified receipts of Rs.525.95 crores. As the search action progress in the course of post- search investigation, the total additional income was worked-out to Rs.58.26 crores. The average net profit declared by the assessee in respect of differential turnover in the returns filed in pursuance to notice issued u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is consequent of search action which is around 9.3%. This net profit is based on the seized material and is more than the reasonable estimation in the line of civil construction. However, the Assessing Officer without any basis and further without assigning any reasons, estimated 18% profit on suppressed turnover 69 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. arising out of seized material. The main reason for the Assessing Officer to estimate the income on higher side is that, the assessee is not in a position to substantiate it’s claim of expenses by producing supporting vouchers and other documentary evidences, but, the fact remains that, the Assessing Officer has grossly erred in not recognizing the details of expenditure contained in the seized material. Further, as per the said seized material, the year-wise expenditure is also recorded. The entries relating to the expenditure are similarly placed to those relating to the receipts. Just as there is no corroborative evidence in respect of entries [relating to receipts], there is also no corroborative evidence in respect of entries relating to the expenditure and that, the legal presumption contained u/sec.132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the truth of the contents of the seized documents applies equally to all the entries in the seized material. Therefore, as the Assessing Officer has considered the receipt related notings for the purpose of computation of income, the expenditure related notings also should have 70 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. been considered. The Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, it is not open for the Assessing Officer to consider that part of the seized material which is favourable to the Revenue and ignore the part of the seized material which is in favour of the Assessee. It is also an established law that, a holistic view of the seized material should be taken and that, the contents in seized material needs to be considered constructively and meaningfully. Once the receipts recorded in the seized documents are believed to be the income, the entries of expenditure recorded therein are also to be believed without assigning for more evidence for such expenditure. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indeo Airways P. Ltd., [2012] 26 taxman.com 244 (Del.). The Learned Counsel for the Assessee had also relied upon decision of Hon’ble Kerala High Court in the case of CIT (Central) vs., Damac Holdings Pvt. Ltd., [2018] 89 taxmann.com 70 (Kerala).

Sri Narender Kumar Naik, learned CIT-DR along with Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the Assessing Officer estimated 18% profit on suppressed turnover/undisclosed turnover by assigning valid reasons and as per the Assessing Officer there are certain administrative and establishment expenses which are common for disclosed and undisclosed turnover and once the administrative and other over-head expenses are 73 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. accounted in the regular books of accounts against disclosed turnover, then, obviously, the profit margin in undisclosed turnover is on higher side. The Assessing Officer had also brought-out various other reasons including application of provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act in respect of certain expenses. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant seized documents and also regular books of accounts of the assessee, has rightly estimated 18% profit on undisclosed turnover. The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts and also without assigning any reasons, has simply scaled-down the rate of profit to 15% on suppressed turnover. He, therefore, submitted that, the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue should be set-aside and the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be upheld.

The Learned CIT-DR, in so far as deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer towards 14% estimation of profit on disclosed turnover submitted that, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the books of accounts u/sec.145(3) of the Act and estimated 14% profit 74 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. on disclosed turnover considering the net profit declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment years which is very less when compared to the industry average for this kind of business. The Assessing Officer had also given other reasons including apportionment of common expenditure for disclosed and undisclosed turnover and held that, the assessee has recorded all expenditure in the regular books of accounts, whereas, the undisclosed turnover also contains certain payments relating to landlords’ which is not substantiated with relevant evidences. Since the appellant could not substantiate various expenditure debited to P & L A/c, the Assessing Officer has rightly rejected the books of accounts u/sec.145(3) of the Act and estimated 14% profit on disclosed turnover. The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts, has simply deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. He, therefore, submitted that, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be set-aside and addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained.

Per Contra, the Learned Counsel for the Assessee supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) on deletion of estimation of 14% profit on disclosed turnover submitted that, before the Assessing Officer it was submitted that, the average net profit as per the regular returns filed for the years under consideration is around 7.8%. Against this, in the assessment order passed, the net profit has been estimated at 14% on disclosed turnover. The Assessing Officer neither issued any show cause notice nor given any reasons for rejecting the books of accounts. In absence of any reasons for rejecting books of accounts, the book results cannot be disturbed, more particularly, when said books of accounts are audited by an Accountant. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards 14% profit on disclosed turnover. Therefore, he submitted that, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld and addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. During the course of search, certain documents were found including loose sheets, books of accounts and computer data which contain details of gross receipts and expenditure of the appellant group as a whole. The documents found during the course of search were confronted to Shri K. Suresh Kumar Reddy, Chairman and Managing Director of the appellant group company, where he stated that the said document contains abstract of gross receipts and expenditure and net profit of the entire group as a whole without any bifurcation as to the year, entity and nature of receipts and expenditure. The documents found during the course of search has been examined during post-search investigation and the assessee has submitted the details of total turnover as per the seized documents and also compared with regular books of accounts maintained for the relevant assessment year and has arrived at unaccounted/ suppressed turnover of Rs.625.95 crores against the financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020- 77 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. 2021 and 2021-2022. The appellant group had also disclosed additional income of Rs.60 crores on the basis of the seized document towards suppressed turnover. Further, once again, the assessee has filed a revised statement of suppressed turnover during post-search investigation and claimed that, the total turnover for the entire period in respect of group is at Rs.1144 crores and the differential turnover has been worked-out to Rs.625.95 crores. The total additional income worked-out was at Rs.58.26 crores. The above undisclosed/suppressed turnover and resultant profit has been apportioned to entity-wise and year-wise on the basis of estimation and adjustments. The Assessing Officer made additions towards 18% profit on suppressed turnover on the basis of very same seized materials and workings submitted by the appellant-company. The assessee had also admitted additional income of Rs.58.26 crores on the basis of very same seized material and workings submitted during the course of post-search investigation. Therefore, it is necessary for us to deal with the grounds of appeal

The Learned Counsel for the Assessee contended that, the seized material found during the course of search lacks evidentiary value because, it does not contain any details as to the nature of transactions, whether it is a receipt, payment, loan etc. and further, it does not contain details of entity-wise, year-wise gross receipts and expenditure. Similarly, it also does not contain details of entity-wise and year-wise expenditure of all the groups. Further, the appellant has worked-out unaccounted turnover at Rs.625.95 crores and total additional income of Rs.58.26 crores on the basis of very same seized material after analyzing the said materials with the regular books of accounts and come to the conclusion that, there are huge unaccounted cash transactions of the group pertains to various assessment years and the same has been verified with reference to the books of accounts and has arrived at a suppressed turnover of Rs.625.95 crores with corresponding 79 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. suppressed profit of Rs.58.26 crores. The assessee had also apportioned suppressed/unaccounted turnover among group entities for relevant assessment years and also offered additional income @ 9.3% of total suppressed turnover for all these assessment years in respect of various entities. Further, the Assessing Officer had also considered very same seized materials for estimation of 18% profit on undisclosed turnover. The one side considered unaccounted turnover recorded in seized materials as sacrosanct, but rejected other part of seized material which contains expenditure by assigning general reasons. Since the assessee and the assessing officer, both considered the seized material and arrived at suppressed turnover and corresponding undisclosed income, in our considered view, the arguments of the Counsel for the Assessee that, the seized document is a dumb document and lacks evidentiary value, is devoid of merit and cannot be accepted. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly rejected the ground taken by the assessee on the issue of evidentiary value of seized documents found during 80 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. the course of search and thus, we are inclined to uphold the order of the learned CIT(A) and reject the ground taken by the assessee.

Having said so, let us come back to the issue of estimation of 18% net profit on undisclosed turnover by the Assessing Officer and reduction of net profit to 15% of suppressed turnover by the learned CIT(A). The Assessing Officer has estimated 18% profit on suppressed turnover. The main reason for the Assessing Officer for estimating the income at a higher rate is that, the assessee is not in a position to substantiate it’s claim of expenses by producing supporting vouchers and other documentary evidences to establish the admissibility of expenses associated with the undisclosed turnover. The Assessing Officer further noted that, in suppressed turnover, normally the profit margin is at higher side because, general establishment and administrative expenses has already been recorded in the regular books of accounts against disclosed turnover. The Assessing Officer further noted that, there is a provision for application of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act for various expenditure 81 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. for non-deduction of TDS and, therefore, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that, the profit admitted by the assessee for suppressed turnover which was at 9.3% on an average is not backed by any evidence and, therefore, rejected the income admitted by the assessee and has estimated 18% profit on total suppressed turnover for the appellant and other entities for all assessment years. Although, the learned CIT(A) has scaled-down the estimation of profit to 15%, but, there is no basis for the ld. CIT(A) to adopt 15% profit, except referring to Coordinate Bench decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Skill Promoters vs., DCIT (supra), where the Coordinate Bench has estimated 15% profit on undisclosed turnover. In other words, the learned CIT(A) in principle has accepted the contention of the assessee that there is no scope for estimation of higher profit on suppressed turnover going by the nature of seized document found during the course of search, but, went on to estimate at 15% profit only on the basis of the Order of Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Skill Promoters 82 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. vs., DCIT (supra), which has considered 15% profit on suppressed turnover. Therefore, it is necessary for us to examine the reasons given by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) to estimate 18% and 15% profit respectively, on suppressed turnover in light of various arguments of the Counsel for the Assessee.

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, the seized documents found during the course of search contains total receipts of the appellant-company and other associated Firms and Companies for the financial years 2017-2018, 2018-2019, 2019-2020, 2020-2021 and 2021- 2022. The said document also contains the total expenditure of the appellant-company’s and its group entities. We have gone through relevant seized documents considered by the appellant-company and the Assessing Officer for declaration of additional income on suppressed turnover and estimation of 18% profit on suppressed turnover. The said document contains cash receipts and cash payments pertain to financial years 2017-2018 to 2021-2022. The assessee on the basis of said documents 83 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. has arrived at unaccounted/suppressed turnover of Rs.625.95 crores and unaccounted income of Rs.58.26 crores. The Assessing Officer considered the gross receipts from the seized material for the purpose of estimation of 18% profit on suppressed turnover. However, ignored the expenditure recorded in the very same seized material. It is an admitted fact that there is no evidence for receipts and expenditure recorded in the seized materials. The Assessing Officer considered undisclosed turnover worked out from the seized materials, but conveniently ignored expenditure recorded in very same seized materials. Although, the Assessing Officer had given his own reason for estimation of higher profit that, expenditure recorded in the seized material is not backed by any evidences, in our considered view, when receipts recorded in the seized material is not backed by any evidences, then the Assessing Officer cannot insist for evidences on the expenditure which is also recorded in the very same seized material. In our considered view, if any seized material is considered for the purpose of assessment of undisclosed income, then, said seized 84 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. material should be considered in total and cherry picking of data from the seized material which suites to the Revenue, cannot be accepted. In the present case, the Assessing Officer has accepted the undisclosed receipts recorded in the seized material and estimated 18% profit on the said receipts without any modification, however, rejected the expenditure recorded in the very same seized material for want of evidence while estimating profit of 18% on suppressed turnover. It is well settled principle of law that, legal presumption u/sec.132(4A) and 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in respect of the truth of the contents of the seized documents applies equally to all the entries in the seized material and it is not open for the Assessing Officer to consider that part of the seized material which is favourable to the Revenue and ignore the other part of the seized material which is in favour of the Assessee. It is established in law that, holistic view of the seized material should be taken and that, the contents in the seized material need to be considered constrictively and meaningfully. Further, when the receipts recorded in the seized documents are 85 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. believed to be the income and entries of expenditure recorded therein are also to be believed without asking for more evidence for such expenditure.

At this stage, it is relevant to refer to the decision of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of Indeo Airways P. Ltd., (supra), where it has been clearly held that, “if the correctness of the contents of books and other materials is to be presumed, such a deemed state of affairs would have to be assumed in respect of all entries in the books, and not merely the entries of income or receipts alone." The Hon’ble High Court categorically held that, “if the Revenue was of the opinion that, the expenses claimed were inadmissible or were excessive, or not genuine, in order to reject the entries in the books of account or seized documents found during the course of search, it ought to have relied on other materials. Having once drawn the presumption that, the contents of documents of the assessee taken into possession during the search were true, the Revenue could not have, consistently with that presumption, proceeded to require 86 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. the assessee to produce materials in support of expenditure entries. Such an inconsistent approach, in respect of the contents of the same appears to have been founded only on suspicion that, they were not genuine. However, suspicion cannot replace proof. Moreover, the full effect of the presumption should be given effect to, whenever the statute directs a particular non-existent state of affairs to be assumed. Therefore, presumption in the seized documents can be raised in favour of the assessee also”. A similar view has been taken by the Hon,ble High Court of Kerala in CIT (Central) Kochi v. Damac Holdings Pvt Ltd, (supra), wherein it has been held that, “the presumption u/sec.132(4A) of the Act, should be apply both in the case of Department and the Assessee and could be rebutted either. The Hon’ble Kerala High Court further held that, “presumption u/sec.132(4A) applies in favour of the assessee insofar as the expenditure being supported by the documents seized at the time of search”. It was held that,“there is no need for a further proof u/sec.37, since the Assessing 87 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. Officer did not endeavor to carry-out any enquiry or investigation to the source of investment or the genuineness of the expenditure made”. The Hon'ble Court also observed that,“in the teeth of the presumption as to the truth of the documents seized, there is no further proof required u/sec.37 of the Act, the Department having failed to rebut such presumption”. In the present case, The learned CIT(A), although, accepted the claim of the assessee that the appellant also gets support of the same presumption which the Assessing Officer has relied upon while considering the unaccounted receipts, but, erred in not accepting the seized documents in toto which is the basis for the assessee to estimate suppressed turnover of Rs.625.95 crores and additional income of Rs.58.26 crores. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) are erred in not considering the seized documents in toto and estimating profit on suppressed/unaccounted turnover.

Another important point to be noted in the given facts of the present case is, the Assessing Officer adopted 18% profit on suppressed turnover without assigning any valid reasons. Although, the Assessing Officer has given his own reasons that, normally the profit margin in undisclosed turnover is higher side and said findings has been supported with the reasoning that, the administrative and other over-head expenses are also recorded in the regular books of accounts, but, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer has failed to make any clear-cut finding that, the assessee has fully recorded the administrative and other expenditure in the regular books of accounts against disclosed turnover and further claimed the said expenditure in the expenditure recorded from the seized material. In our considered view, unless there is a clear-cut finding with reference to the nature of expenditure that, said expenditure is recorded in the regular books of accounts also finds place in the seized documents, the conclusion drawn by the Assessing Officer that, this is 89 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. the reason for estimating higher profit on suppressed turnover is totally based on suspicion and surmises, but, not on the basis of any evidence. Further, although, the Assessing Officer has discussed the issue in light of provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act and consequent disallowance, but, once again failed to record any clear-cut finding with reference to any of the expenditure that, particular expenditure incurred by the assessee has been paid without deducting TDS, which attracts provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Act, in our considered view, the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to reject the seized documents in part and estimating 18% profit on suppressed turnover cannot be accepted. It is further noted that, although, the Assessing Officer has given one more reason that, matching of expenditure with reference to entity wise and year wise is not possible and the same provides justification for estimation of profit against it’s receipts on higher percentage, but, the fact remains that, both entries relating to the receipts and expenditure suffer 90 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. from same defects/deficiencies i.e., the seized documents are not speaking and the specific details of nature of transaction, entity, project, date of transaction, customers etc., are not available. Therefore, the justification provided for estimation of profit at a higher rate does not carry any weight. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in resorting to estimate the profit on suppressed turnover @ 18% even though, it is not a case for the Assessing Officer that the books of accounts maintained by the appellant-company are not susceptible for verification and which requires rejection of books of accounts u/sec.145(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961. At this stage, we took support from the decision of Hon’ble Andhra Pradesh High Court in Indwell Constructions vs., CIT (supra), where it has held that, “the pattern of assessment under the Act is given by section 29 which states that the income from profits and gains of business shall be computed in accordance with the provisions contained in sections 30 91 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. to 43D. It was noted that, the computation under section 29 is to be made under section 145 on the basis of the books regularly maintained by the assessee. If those books are not correct or complete, the Assessing Officer may reject those books and estimate the income to the best of his judgement”. It was further held that,“when such an estimate is made it is in substitution of the income that is to be computed under section 29. In other words, all the deductions which are referred to under section 29 are deemed to have been taken into account while making such an estimate”. Since the assessee has estimated the profit on the basis of the seized document, which contains both receipts and expenditure and the Assessing Officer had also considered the undisclosed turnover from very same seized material, in our considered view, ignoring the expenditure on the reasoning that, said expenditure is not supported by relevant evidences and also attracts provisions of sec.40(a)(ia) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is totally incorrect and cannot be accepted. If the logic 92 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. adopted by the AO for estimating profit on undisclosed turnover from seized materials by ignoring expenditure recorded in very same seized material is accepted, then there is no material for the AO to estimate 18% profit on undisclosed turnover, because if you reject seized material, then there is no material or basis for AO to consider unaccounted turnover. We, therefore cannot accept reason given by the AO for rejecting part of seized material which pertains to expenditure and estimate profit on unaccounted turnover.

Coming back to the observations of the learned CIT(A) for estimating 15% profit on the suppressed turnover. Admittedly, the learned CIT(A) very candidly held that, presumption contained u/sec.132(4A) and 292C is equally applicable to the assessee and the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) having noticed that presumption contained u/sec.132(4A) is equally applicable to both sides, but, erred in not considering the seized document in toto for the purpose of assessment of undisclosed income, even 93 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. though, said document contains both income and expenditure of the assessee group for the relevant assessment years. The learned CIT(A) had also like Assessing Officer had considered part of the seized material which contains suppressed turnover as computed by the appellant company without any modification, however, rejected the expenditure from the very same seized material on the very same reasons given by the Assessing Officer, without any reasoning as to how the other part of the seized document cannot be accepted when presumption goes equally in favour of the assessee. Therefore, to this extent, we cannot appreciate the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to estimate 15% profit on suppressed turnover. Further, the learned CIT(A) had also taken support from the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Skill Promoters (supra), where the Tribunal has upheld 15% profit on unaccounted turnover. We once again do not subscribe to the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) for the simple reason that, the rate of 94 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. profit considered for estimation of income is not the basis for determination of income from business or profession. It is only the reasons given for estimation of income alone is the basis for considering any case in favour of the Assessee or the Revenue. The net profit rate of an assessee may depend upon the nature of business carried-on by the assessee, the profit margins prevalent for the relevant business in the industry and also the geographical region where the said business are carried on by the assessee. If a particular assessee carried on certain business in a particular geographical region, even though, the nature of business is same, the profit percentage may be differed depending upon the region and the place of business. However, the reasons for estimation of turnover or income are common for all the assessees’ because, while estimating, the Assessing Officer should consider relevant materials available on record and the explanation of the assessee. For example, in case of an estimation of suppressed turnover, the Assessing 95 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. Officer might have details in respect of unaccounted turnover/suppressed turnover for a particular period, and not for entire year, but on the basis of data available with the Assessing Officer, he can make a reasonable estimation of suppressed turnover for remaining part of the financial year or other financial years and this principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CST vs., H.M. Esufali H.M. Abdulali (supra), where the Hon'ble Supreme Court observed that,“the Assessing Officer could only make an estimate of the suppressed turnover on the basis of the material before him. So long as the estimate made by him was not arbitrary and has nexus with facts discovered, the same could not be questioned.” The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Dhakeshwari Cotton Mills Ltd. vs., CIT[1954] 26 ITR 775 (SC), held that, the Assessing Officer has to act in a judicial manner and proceed with judicial spirit and came to a judicial conclusion, while recognising that, the Assessing Officer is not fettered by technical rules 96 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. of evidence, but, the Assessing Officer has to act fairly as a reasonable person and not arbitrarily or capriciously. An assessment based on no material at all or based on inadequate material is, therefore, bad in law and liable to be set aside. The issue relating to method of accounting or estimation of profit was also considered in the case of Vrajlal Manilal and Co. vs., CIT[1973] 92 ITR 287 (Madhya Pradesh). The Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court while considering an identical issue has held that, “the previous orders of assessment would form good material or good evidence for the purpose of computing assessment for the year in question. The Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad, in the case of R.K.Township Constructions Pvt. Ltd vs., DCIT, Circle-3(1), Hyderabad in I.T.A.No. 1262/Hyd/2013 vide Order dated21.10.2016, held that, “the income can be determined at 8% on the gross sales”. A similar view has been taken by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of ACIT vs., Sri Sri Estates, Hyderabad,ITA.No. 2242/Hyd/ 97 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. 2017 vide Order dated 25.07.2018, where the jurisdictional ITAT, Hyderabad, observed that, generally in real estate cases, profit is estimated at 8% to 12.5%. The sum and substance of ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, various High Courts and the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal are that, as long as the estimation is on the scientific basis and reasonable, the same could not be questioned. In the present case, going by the reasons given by the Assessing Officer for adopting 18% profit on suppressed turnover, in our considered view, the estimation of profit at 18% by the Assessing Officer is arbitrary and without any basis. The Assessing Officer neither considered any case of similar nature or industrial average nor given any valid reasons for adopting higher profit, than the profit worked-out by the assessee on the basis of seized material. In absence of any valid reason, 18% profit rate adopted by the Assessing Officer cannot be upheld. The learned CIT(A) had also not given any valid reasons for adopting 15% 98 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. profit on suppressed turnover except placing reliance on the decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Bench, Hyderabad in the case of Skill Promoters (supra). As we have already noted in the earlier part of this order, there cannot be any precedence for rate of profit. in our considered view, on that basis alone, 15% profit adopted by the learned CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) are completely erred in estimating profit on suppressed turnover by ignoring the profit worked-out by the assessee on the basis of seized material, where the assessee has computed the suppressed turnover at Rs.625.95 crores and unaccounted income of Rs.58.26 crores for the entire group and for the relevant assessment years which is almost 9.3% and higher than the net profit declared by the assessee for the relevant assessment years in the regular books of accounts maintained for his business.

In this view of the matter and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer has erred in estimating 18% profit on suppressed turnover and the learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts, has simply estimated 15% profit on suppressed turnover. Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to accept the suppressed turnover and relevant profit computed by the assessee on the basis of seized document found during the course of search. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of Assessee are allowed and grounds of appeal of Revenue are rejected.

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee ITA.Nos.518, 519, 520 and 521/Hyd./2025 for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 are allowed and appeals filed by the Revenue ITA.Nos.308, 309, 310 and 311/Hyd./2025 for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 are dismissed.

The facts and issues involved in the following appeals i.e., ITA.Nos.514 to 517/Hyd./2025 in the case of M/s Skanda Infra Projects Private Limited, Kurnool for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023, ITA.Nos.522 to 525/Hyd./2025 in the case of M/s 103 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. Skanda Infra Projects, Kurnool for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023, ITA.Nos.526 to 529/Hyd./2025 in the case of M/s Skandhanshi Developers, Kurnool, for the assessment years 2019- 2020 to 2022-2023, ITA.Nos.530 to 532/Hyd./2025 in the case of M/s Skanda Builders, Kurnool, for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2021-2022, ITA.No.533/Hyd./2025 in the case of M/s Skanda Developers & Builders, Kurnool, for the assessment year 2019-2020, ITA.Nos.534 and 535/ Hyd./2025 in the case of M/s Skandhanshi Infra Projects, Kurnool, for the assessment years 2019-2020 and 2020-2021 and ITA.Nos.536 to 539/Hyd./2025 in the case of Shri Suresh Kumar Reddy Krishnapuram, Kurnool, for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023, are identical to the facts and issues which we have considered in the case of M/s Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool in ITA.Nos.518 to 521/Hyd./2025 for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023. But for facts and figures, the issues 104 ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025, And ITA.Nos.308 to 311/Hyd./2025. involved in all these appeals are identical to the issue which we have considered in the case of M/s Skandhanshi Infra Projects India Private Limited, Kurnool (supra), on the issue of estimation of 18% profit by the Assessing Officer on unaccounted/suppressed turnover and estimation of 15% profit on suppressed/ unaccounted turnover by the learned CIT(A). The reasons given by us in the preceding paragraph nos.20 to 27 shall apply mutatis mutandis in this remaining group of appeals as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the additions made towards estimation of 18% profit on suppressed turnover and accept the additional income quantified by the assessee towards profit on suppressed turnover on the basis of seized document found during the course of search and admitted in the returns of income filed for the assessment years 2019-2020 to 2022-2023 in case of respective assessee’s, consequent to search.

In the result, all the appeals filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed.

To sum-up, all the appeals ITA.Nos.514 to 539/Hyd./2025 filed by the different Assessee’s are allowed and appeals of the Revenue ITA.Nos.308, 309, 310 and 311/Hyd./2025 are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.