ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(2), HYDERABAD vs. SRI ADITYA HOMES PRIVATE LIMITED, HYDERABAD

The Revenue had also taken more or less common grounds of appeal

Grounds of appeal

Brief facts of the case are extracted from I.T.(S.S)A.No.262/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2013- 2014 are that, the assessee viz., Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited is into real estate business of development/ construction of residential apartments. A search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [in short "the Act"] was conducted in the case of the assessee on 12.07.2018. During the course of search, certain material, which is in the nature of loose sheets was seized from the residential premises of an employee Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy. In the course of search action, statements were recorded from the said employee and Mr V.Kota Reddy, Managing Director of the assessee-company. During the course of search, the assessee, on the basis of seized material found during the course of search, has voluntarily admitted additional income of Rs.19.20 crores and said admission was 6 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 general and conditional and the additional income admitted was after due consideration of the seized material for various discrepancies noticed during the course of search. The assessee has admitted additional income for the assessment year 2018- 2019, which includes disclosure of additional income at 15% of the turnover. Further, in the return of income filed, in response to notice under section 153A of the Act, the assessee has declared additional income admitted during the course of search and paid related taxes.

The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the Assessing Officer, on the basis of loose sheets found during the course of search and also taking note of statements recorded from Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy, an employee and Shri V. Kota Reddy, Managing Director of the assessee-company, has made additions towards unaccounted turnover being difference between the turnover as per the books of accounts and turnover as per seized loose sheets, in respect of Aditya Sunshine Project and made addition amounting to Rs.36,15,64,800/-. The Assessing Officer had also made additions towards unexplained cash towards entries found in the loose sheets for Rs.43 lakhs. The Assessing Officer had also made addition of Rs.4,27,75,462/- towards unexplained expenditure on the basis of incriminating material found during the course of search. Similarly, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.98,62,500/- towards unexplained expenditure, in respect of expenditure incurred based on lose sheets found during the course of search. Likewise, the Assessing Officer

Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee contested the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover, being difference between turnover as per books of accounts and turnover as per lose sheets found from the residential premises of Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy, an employee. The assessee had also challenged various additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained cash, unexplained expenditure on the basis of loose sheets, in light of evidentiary value of said loose sheets and in absence of corroborative evidence to make such additions and also the additions made on the basis of third party statement without providing an opportunity of cross-examination to the assessee, despite the assessee was seeking for cross-examination of the person, who gave the statement. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee, where the learned CIT(A) has allowed substantial relief, in respect of additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained turnover on the basis of explanation of assessee, coupled with remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, where the assessee has submitted reconciliation between turnover as per loose sheets found in the premises of an employee with reference to books of accounts and 8 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 claimed that, entire turnover in respect of Aditya Sunshine Project has been received in cheque and the same has been recorded in the regular books of accounts maintained for the relevant assessment year and thus, out of the additions made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.36,15,64,800/-, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition to the extent of Rs.4,47,46,958/- towards the sale consideration in respect of 30 customers, in whose case, the amount is excess in the seized material, when compared to the books of accounts. However, the learned CIT(A) has ignored the remaining 34 customers, in whose cases, the sale consideration recorded in the books of accounts is, excess when compared to the amount recorded in the seized material. The learned CIT(A) had also partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee towards various additions made in respect of unexplained money and unexplained expenditure on the basis of seized material. However, allowed the benefit of telescoping on income sustained by the CIT(A) towards additions made on account of unaccounted turnover from Aditya Sunshine Project to various additions made by the AO and sustained by the CIT(A).

The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no. 4 of assessee’s appeal is, addition of Rs.43 lakhs as undisclosed sale receipt in cash on the basis of material found during the course of search.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer, on the basis of loose sheets, without appreciating the fact that, said loose sheets are ‘dumb documents’ without any specific information with regard to nature of payments and person to whom the said payments were made. The learned Assessing Officer made addition, only on the statement of Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy, an employee, but the fact remains that, said statement is vague in nature without any specific explanation with regard to the contents of the said document. Although, the said material is not having evidentiary 11 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 value and further, there is no corroborative evidence to justify the transaction recorded in the loose sheets, the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) are simply made the addition, only on the basis of statement of a third party, even though, the assessee seeks to cross examine the third party with reference to the statement, but, the Assessing Officer did not provide any opportunity for cross-examination. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer, cannot be sustained in law and the same needs to be deleted.

Shri Narender Kumar Naik, ld. 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 addition is based on the incriminating material found during the course of search, in the premises of Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy an employee of the assessee. Further, Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy has explained the contents of the said document and stated that, these transactions are pertaining to day-to-day cash transactions of Assessee-Company viz., Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited. Further, the seized material containing some specific information like Flat No, date of transaction etc. Since the document was found in the premises of the employee of the Assessee-Company, the arguments of Counsel for the Assessee that, said document is not found in the premises of the assessee and presumption contained under section 132(4A) read with section 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is not applicable is devoid of merits. The Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made addition and thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be sustained.

The next issue that came-up for consideration through ground no.5 of assessee’s appeal and ground nos. 1 to 3 of Revenue’s appeal is, addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.4,27,75,462/- towards unexplained expenditure and taxed under section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and deletion of addition by the learned CIT(A) towards unexplained expenditure of Rs.86,75,000/-, Rs.58,00,000/- and Rs.98,62,500/-.

The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that, during the course of search proceedings at residence of Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy on 12.07.2018, loose sheets were found and seized vide page nos.8 to 12 of Annexure-A/AHPL/ BVR/RES/03, which contains transactions pertaining to EMMAR Boulder Hills Villa no.74 and 77. In the statement recorded during the course of search, Shri. BVR has explained

Aggrieved by the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the payments are to the tune of Rs.1,12,87,497/- are available in account books and the same are incurred in cash. The payments are towards registration expenses, Villa repairs, land transaction which are part of the business. The assessee further submitted that, out of the sum of Rs.1,12,87,497/-, Rs.14,24,997/- is recorded in the books of accounts and the balance sum of Rs.98,62,500/- is in dispute. In respect of balance amount of Rs.3,14,87,965/- there are four components, i.e., one is Rs.1,36,96,475/- related to payment of Bharath Waterfront Private Limited, Rs.52,50,000/- paid to Sriba Seabase Private Limited, Rs.86,75,000/- paid to Shri Raghurama Raju and Rs.38,66,490/- payments made by Shri V. Kota Reddy and not the assessee.

During the appellate proceedings, the learned CIT(A) asked the Assessing Officer to submit a remand report on various additional evidence filed by the assessee. The Assessing Officer, in his remand report dated 16.07.2024, has verified the additional evidence filed by the assessee and submitted the report. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant 16 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 submissions of the assessee and also taken note of remand report of the Assessing Officer held that, out of Rs.1,12,87,497/- , an amount of Rs.14,24,997/- is available in the books of accounts and payments are made in cheque towards various expenses. The learned CIT(A) further held that, since the expenses have been incurred in violation of provisions of 40A(3) of the Act, directed the Assessing Officer to sustain the addition of Rs.14,24,997/- under section 40A(3) of the Act. In respect of balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/-, the learned CIT(A) confirmed the addition on the ground that, in absence of satisfactory explanation from the assessee with regard to nature of payment referred to in the seized material, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is required to be confirmed in principle. However, deleted the addition on the ground of double taxation and on account of the benefit of telescoping and held that, the amount available to the assessee out of addition sustained towards unaccounted turnover can be telescoped against the unexplained expenditure being part of very same seized material and thus, the Assessing Officer is directed to allow the benefit of telescoping towards addition sustained on this issue.

Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the Assessee as well as the Revenue are in appeal before the Tribunal.

Shri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Shri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition Rs.1,19,43,383/- (Rs.98,62,500/- + Rs.20,80,833/-) in 17 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 principle as unexplained expenditure, though, deleted the addition on account of double taxation and by applying telescoping. Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the statement of employee is vague without anything meaningful. Although, he has stated that, it is a cash expenditure, but no specific explanation was sought from the employee and the employee did not supply further necessary details to bring-out the nature of transactions and demonstrated that, such transactions are actually took place. There was neither enquiry nor any corroborate evidence gathered to support the view that, the sum of Rs.98,62,500/- actually represents the unexplained expenditure. Further, the assessee explained the transaction recorded in the books and claimed that there was certain business transactions between the assessee company and Shri K. Raghurama Krishna Raju in respect of QM Nagar land and repair works for his Villa and such transactions have duly noted in the regular books of accounts, which have been verified in the remand proceedings. Out of a sum of Rs.1,12,87,497/- reflected in the loose sheets, Rs.14,24,997/-is recorded in the regular books of accounts. As the expenditure is incurred in cash, the same has been disallowed under section 40(A3) of the Act. In respect of balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/- reflected in the loose sheets, it pertains to development of the project in QM Nagar land belongs to Shri K. Raghuram Krishna Raju and the project got held up due to denial of permission by the Archaeological Department and the same was not expanded by the assessee. In respect of balance addition of Rs.20,80,833/-, which is part of the larger amount of Rs.3,14,87,965/-, the same

Shri Narender Kumar Naik, CIT-DR along with Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Assessing Officer submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.58 lakhs representing unexplained expenditure without appreciating the fact that, the assessee failed to discharge the onus either during the course of assessment proceedings or during the course of remand proceedings. The Learned CIT-DR further, referring to deletion of addition of Rs.86,75,000/- submitted that, the learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition only on the basis of remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, where the Assessing Officer stated that, these transactions are made through cheque. Further, the purpose of payment and whether the said payment has been recorded in the books of accounts, is not clear in the remand report. Although, the assessee could not explain the relevant transactions before the learned CIT(A), but, the learned CIT(A) has simply deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be sustained.

Coming back to the balance amount of Rs.98,62,500/-. Although, the assessee claims that the said transaction has not materialized due to project being held up on account of regulatory requirements, but the fact remains that, there is a clear entry in the seized document dated 27.04.2013 that, QM Nagar landowner settlement Rs.98,62,500/- is ‘receivable’ in cash. In other words, going by the contents of seized material, it clearly shows that, assessee has spent an amount of Rs.98,62,500/- on 27.04.2013 towards QM Nagar landowner settlement and the same is receivable by the assessee. To this extent, we cannot appreciate the argument of the Counsel for the Assessee that, these transactions have not materialized and further, the document does not show any transactions made in cash. However, the fact remains that, whether the particular entry contained in page-12 of the seized document can be assessed for the assessment year 2013-2014 is the next question that needs to be looked into. Admittedly, the date of transaction is 27.04.2013 which pertains to financial year 2013-2014 relevant to assessment year 2014-2015. If at all any cash expenditure is incurred and the same is unaccounted,

Coming back to the additions deleted by the learned CIT(A). The learned CIT(A) has deleted the addition made by the Assessing Officer for Rs.58 lakhs towards payment made to Bharath Waterfront Private Limited, which is part of larger addition of Rs.3,14,87,965/-. Learned CIT(A) recorded categorical finding in light of remand report of the Assessing Officer that, out of Rs.1,36,96,475/-, Rs.58,15,642/- being cheque payment and recorded in the regular books of accounts. Out of the remaining balance of Rs.78,80,833/-, Rs.58 lakhs represents the so-called entries which were earlier paid by cheques as per the details enclosed along with bank statement highlighting the original payments. The learned CIT(A) has reproduced the relevant payments and corresponding journal entries for the year under consideration and had given a 23 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 categorical finding that, these transactions are made through proper banking channel and also recorded in the regular books of accounts. This fact has been accepted by the Assessing Officer in his remand report. Since there is a clear finding from the learned CIT(A) in respect of payment made through cheque, in our considered view, there is no merit in the ground taken by the Revenue challenging the deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we are inclined to uphold the finding of the learned CIT(A) for deletion of addition made by the Assessing Officer towards payment to Bharath Waterfront Private Limited for Rs.58,15,642/-.

In so far as payment of Rs.52,50,000/- is concerned, the Assessing Officer in his remand report noted that, the assessee has paid Rs.52,50,000/- by cheque to Sriba Seabase Private Limited. Similarly, a sum of Rs.86,75,000/- receivable from Shri Raghurama Raju, it was the finding of the learned CIT(A) that, all these payments were made through proper banking channel and also part of regular books of accounts of the assessee. Since the payment related to Sriba Seabase Private Limited and Shri Raghurama Raju is made through banking channel and also recorded in the regular books of accounts, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of loose sheets has been rightly deleted by the learned CIT(A). Thus, we are inclined to uphold the findings of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and reject the ground taken by the Revenue.

The next issue that came up for our consideration from ground no.6 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.4 of Revenue appeal is additions made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover from Aditya Sunshine Project for Rs.36,15,64,800/- and sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.4,47,46,950/-.

This ground is common for the assessment years 2013-2014 to 2017-2018. Therefore, the findings given by us in subsequent paragraphs on this issue shall equally apply to assessment years 2014-2015 to 2017-2018.

The facts with regard to the impugned dispute are that, during the course of search proceedings at the residence of Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy on 02.07.2018, document was found and seized vide pages 2, 3 and 4 of Annexure-A/AHPL/BVR/ RES/02. The said document contains summary sales pertaining

The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of documents found during the course of search observed that, revenue recognition in respect of Aditya Sunshine Project is not full and true. There are instances where the cost of 1910 sq. feet flat is 26 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 80% higher than 2425 sq. feet flat and the cost of 1955 sq. feet flat is 58% higher than 2485 sq. feet flat. The Assessing Officer further noted that, Shri. BVR in his statement recorded during the course of search stated that these sheets pertain to details of Flats sold in Aditya Sunshine Project and further stated that, the last two zeros truncated, and cost was mentioned. Therefore, the Assessing Officer observed that, the arguments of the assessee that, these statements are only working sheets and not the correct amount in respect of Aditya Sunshine Project cannot be accepted. Therefore, taking note of relevant documents found during the course of search and also submission of the assessee, the AO has worked-out the difference in turnover as per the seized material when compared to the books of accounts for Rs.36,15,64,800/- in respect of 64 flats sold during the financial year relevant to assessment year under consideration and made additions to the total income of the assessee.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee has filed complete details of sales in respect of Aditya Sunshine Project from assessment years 2011-2012 to 2017-2018 and also reconciled the amount recorded in incriminating material found in the premises of Shri B. Venkatarami Reddy to the books of accounts maintained for the relevant assessment year. The assessee submitted that, the company has received sale consideration for sale of Flats in Aditya Sunshine Project in two parts i.e., one towards sale of land and the same has been accounted under the Head “Sales”

The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of remand report of the Assessing Officer, has scaled down the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee in I.T.(S.S).A.No.262/Hyd./2025 and the Revenue in ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 are now, in appeal before the Tribunal for the assessment year 2013-2014 respectively.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer for assessment years 2011-2012 and 2012- 2013 submitted that, these assessment orders has been passed subsequent to the order passed in pursuance to search, where the assessee has filed complete reconciliation, in response to show cause notice and reconciled the amount mentioned in the seized material to the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer while completing the assessment has although, proposed addition in respect of difference in turnover as per the seized material, but accepted the explanation of assessee and has not made addition. From the above, it is undisputedly clear that, the document relied upon by the Assessing Officer i.e., loose sheets page nos.2, 3 and 4 found in the premises of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy is only an incomplete document and what is correct document for the purpose of considering the sale transaction is, books of accounts, where, the assessee has recorded the entire sale consideration, which is evident from 30 cases, where, the 32 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 consideration is more than the amount mentioned in the seized document. If at all, the assessee wants to conceal or suppress the turnover in respect of sale of Flats, there is no necessity for the assessee to record the full consideration, which is even more than the amount referred to in the seized document. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) should be deleted.

Learned Counsel for the Assessee in the alternative submitted that, since the difference in turnover as per the seized document and books of accounts in respect of 64 Flats is only Rs.9,61,435/-, the addition can be sustained to the extent of difference of Rs.9,61,435/- only. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further, made an alternative argument and submitted that, if at all, the addition is required to be sustained in respect of shortfall in sales revenue accounted in the books of account in respect of 30 Flats, then, a reasonable amount of profit may be estimated because, it is an admitted fact that, said amount is of sales turnover and the entire sales turnover cannot be considered as profit of the assessee. In this regard, he relied upon the decision of the ITAT, Hyderabad Bench in the case of Sri Sri Estates, Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Central-2(3), Hyderabad in ITA.No.2242 to 2245/Hyd/2017 and ITA.Nos.228 to 230/Hyd./2018, Order dated 25.07.2018 and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of CIT(A) vs. President Industries (2002) 258 ITR 654 (Guj.).

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and gone through the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition towards unaccounted turnover on the basis of loose sheets nos.2, 3 and 4 found and seized vide Annexure-A/AHPL/ BVR/RES./02 from the residence of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy coupled with statement recorded from him under section 132(4) of the Act. The Assessing Officer made addition towards unaccounted turnover for assessment year 2013-2014 to assessment year 2017-2018 on the basis of number of Flats sold during the financial year,

The Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of amount recorded in the seized document and amount recorded in the books of accounts and claimed that there is a difference in consideration recorded in the books of accounts, when compared to seized documents. The Assessing Officer has tabulated no. of Flats sold during the financial year 2012-2013 relevant to assessment year 2013- 2014, amount as per seized material, amount accounted in books and difference in turnover in his assessment order and as per the Assessing Officer, the assessee has sold 64 Flats during the financial year under consideration. The Assessing Officer has computed the amount receivable as per seized material in respect of 64 Flats at Rs.56,80,46,300/-

There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, in the remand report submitted by the Assessing Officer, except few instances discrepancies in amounts, the Assessing Officer has accepted the version of the assessee that, entire amount received towards sale of Flats in Aditya Sunshine Project, is recorded in the books of accounts maintained for the relevant assessment year. Further, the addition made on the basis of seized material is nothing, but, the sale consideration received through banking channel and already accounted for in the books of accounts against the Head “Agreements”. Admittedly, even the amount identified as excess were also received in cheque, which means that, the sale consideration accounted for in the books of accounts is actual sale consideration. In such a scenario, it cannot be considered that, the assessee had reason to hide or suppress a part of the consideration for the purpose of taxation. Therefore, going by the contents of the seized documents coupled with reconciliation submitted by the assessee on the basis of books of accounts maintained for the relevant assessment year, in our considered view, the so called loose sheet nos.2, 3 and 4, are at best, can be considered as an Annexure or Abstract for sale transactions recorded in the books of accounts prepared by an employee for his purpose, but, it cannot

We, further note that, the AO made addition on the basis of suspicion/assumption and without verifying even the basic facts of the case. This is further fortified by the fact that, the Assessing Officer made the addition towards unaccounted turnover without giving any reference to the said addition in the show cause notice, thereby, not given an opportunity to the assessee to explain the case with relevant evidence. Further, the assessee had also filed relevant evidence and also explained the difference with relevant materials, which clearly shows that, there is no difference in turnover as alleged by the Assessing Officer on the basis of lose sheet nos.2, 3 and 4 found in the premises of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy during the course of search. We further took support of 41 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 the fact that, the Assessing Officer has passed assessment order for the assessment year 2011-2012 and 2012-2013 on the basis of very same seized material found during the course of search, where the Assessing Officer has proposed additions in respect of unaccounted turnover of Aditya Sunshine Project for both the assessment years. However, after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee including reconciliation, the AO has not made any addition, which is evident from the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, which are available in the paper book filed by the assessee. Therefore, we are the considered view, that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover on the basis of seized material being loose sheet nos.2, 3 and 4 cannot be sustained. Although, the learned CIT(A) in principle agreed with the contention of the assessee and noted in para 6.11.7 that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover is unsustainable, but, erred in making addition only in respect of 30 Flats, where the amount recorded in the books is short by Rs.4,47,46,950/- when compared to seized material by conveniently ignoring the excess amount recorded by the assessee by Rs.4,37,85,525/- in respect of remaining 34 Flats. Therefore, the addition made by the AO cannot be sustained. Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards unaccounted turnover of Rs.36,15,64,800/-. Accordingly, grounds of the assessee is allowed.

Coming back to the grounds of appeal

In the result, appeal I.T.(S.S.).A.No.262/Hyd./2025 filed by the Assessee for the assessment year 2013-2014 is partly allowed and appeal ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 filed by the Revenue for the assessment year 2013-2014 is dismissed. I.T.(SS.)A.No.263/Hyd/2025-[Assessee] A.Y.– 2014-2015: & C.O.No.9/Hyd./2025 – [Revenue] A.Y. – 2014-2015:

The assessee had taken more or less common grounds for the all the assessment years and in the “lead” appeal i.e., I.T.(S.S.)A.No.262/Hyd/2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014

The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.3 of cross objection filed by the Revenue is addition of Rs.75 lakhs as 44 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 undisclosed sale receipt in cash from the business of the assesses. During the course of search proceedings, at the residence of the Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy on 02.07.2018 loose sheets found and seized vide page nos.48 to 79 of Annexure-A/ AHPL/BVR/RES/02, as per which, cash transaction was found. In the statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act on 13.07.2018 Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy stated that, the loose sheets contain date wise actual day transactions made in cash (cash receipts and cash payments) of the appellant. During the course of assessment proceeding, the Assessing Officer called- upon the assessee to explain whether the said transactions are accounted for in the books and explain as to why the same should not be treated as unexplained cash or unexplained expenditure. In response, the assessee vide letter dated 30.06.2021 stated that, it has no connection with the above- mentioned transactions and further stated that, they are only scribbling and jotting by staff. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant evidence and also taking note of the statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy observed that, the assessee could not explain the amount recorded in the seized material, is part of his regular books of accounts and, therefore, treated the same as unexplained cash and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the contents of seized material page nos.57, 58 and 61 are vague and not relates to the 45 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 assessee. No specific explanation was sought from the employee, and he generally stated they are actual transactions without supplying further necessary details to bring-out the transactions and to demonstrate that, such transactions are taken place. Since the document is not reliable and not having any evidentiary value, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy cannot be sustained. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of relevant seized material observed that, going by the contents of seized material coupled with statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy recorded during the course of search, it is clearly evident that, these transactions pertains to the business of the assessee and further, as per the provisions of section 292C of the Act, the assessee is required to provide credible explanation or rebut the evidence found during the course of search. Since the assessee is failed to provide any explanation with regard to contents of the seized document and further, the employee categorically admitted that these are the day-to-day transactions of the assessee made in cash, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition towards cash transactions on the basis of seized documents. Thus, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) further noted that, since it pertains to the business of the assessee, the same should be treated as unaccounted business income and the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, cannot be applied.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in making addition towards unaccounted business income on the basis of loose sheets i.e., page nos.57, 58 and 61, even though, the said loose sheet does not have any evidentiary value and it lacks specific information, which can be attributable to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, the non- speaking seized loose sheet does not relate to the material evidence and in absence of independent corroborative evidence, no addition can be made on the basis of the same. He further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) applied the legal presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act, but said presumption is restricted to accepting genuineness of the document found during the course of search and it does not expand to interpretation of the document. Since the document does not show any taxable event which could be taxed in terms of basic charging section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said document to cannot be sustained. He, therefore submitted that addition made by the AO should be deleted.

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 47 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 document contains cash transaction of the assessee made for his business and the same has been admitted by Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Although, the assessee denies any connection with the said transaction, but, the fact remains that, said document was found in the possession of the assessee and as per the legal presumption contained under section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act, it is presumed that, said document belongs to the assessee and contents therein are true and correct. Since the assessee is unable to explain the said seized document, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition and the learned CIT(A) after considering relevant facts, has rightly treated the said entries as unaccounted business income of the assessee. The learned CIT- DR further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) has upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, but, erred in allowing the benefit of telescoping to the said addition, out of the addition sustained towards unaccounted business turnover, even though, the expenditure and income are entirely different and not forms part of very same seized material, which is the basis for making the addition. He, therefore, submitted that, the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on the issue of allowing benefit of telescoping should be deleted.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.75 lakhs on the basis of seized material which contains some entries. The Assessing Officer selected entries in cash and made addition as unexplained cash and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. We have 48 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 carefully considered the relevant seized document page nos.57, 58 and 61. The Assessing Officer has considered three cash entries and observed that, these are the day-to-day cash transactions (cash receipts and cash payments). Upon perusal of relevant entries, we find that, it only states by “Cash” without any narration from whom the cash was received and the purpose of the cash receipt. Therefore, from the above, it cannot be ascertained wat is the nature of transaction whether, it is income, loan or any receipt. Therefore, in our considered view, said document lacks evidentiary value. Since the loose sheets are vague in nature and does not show any purpose of the transaction, in our considered view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of statement of an employee cannot be sustained. Further, a plain reading of these documents, leaves much for imagination and interpretation and clearly the essential conditions of taxation in terms of basic charging Sec.4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to certainty of taxable event, identities of principal parties to the transaction, nature and purpose of the transaction, are not satisfied. Although, the employee admitted that these are the day-to-day transactions, but no further question was asked to seek specific explanation on the entries. Since the employee has given a vague reply without supplying further necessary details to bring-out the nature of transactions and demonstrate that, such transactions are actually had taken place, in our considered view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of said evidence and statement cannot be sustained. Although, the learned CIT(A) brought in the legal presumption contained under 49 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Income Tax Act, 1961, in our considered view, the legal presumption is restricted to accepting genuineness of a document found in search and it does not extend to interpretation of the document. In absence of corroborative evidence, the evidence collected from the employee cannot be believed and cannot be the basis of an addition in the assessment. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making addition towards entries contained in loose sheets as unexplained cash and the learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, has treated the said entries as business income of the assessee. Thus, we set- aside the Order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards unexplained cash of Rs. 75,00,000 and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.

In so far as ground taken by the Revenue in it’s cross objection on the issue of telescoping benefit, in our considered view, if any income is assessed on the basis of document found during the course of search, then, if the said income is available for explaining the expenditure or investment, which are also part of the very same seized material, then, in our considered view, the benefit of telescoping should be allowed, otherwise, it amounts to double taxation. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to allow the benefit of telescoping towards income against expenditure and thus, we reject the grounds of cross objection taken by the Revenue.

During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy on 12.07.2018, a document was found and seized vide page no.17 of Annexure-A- AHPL/BVR/RES/04, as per which, a sum of Rs.5,00,00,000/- is mentioned as business/investment as on 31.10.2013. Further, said document contains interest account from ‘VKR’ balance, B. Sudhir Reddy and Ramakant Irani. The document found during the course of search was confronted to Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy and statement was recorded on 13.07.2018, where, he has stated that, the figures mentioned in the said Annexure have been truncated by two zeros. The Assessing Officer called- upon the assessee to explain the contents of the document and whether the same has been recorded in the books of accounts. The assessee in its reply stated that, the loose sheets are calculation of possible profits and interest, and the amount is only Rs.5 lakh, but not Rs.5 crore as admitted by Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in his statement. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant documents and statement from Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy held that, the assessee has invested Rs.5 crore in M/s Laxmi Construction and the same is not recorded in the books of accounts maintained for the relevant assessment year. The details of cheque payments and cash payments were 51 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 furnished by the assessee and no evidence regarding accounting of the above transactions were produced. Therefore, the Assessing Officer treated the amount of Rs.5 crore as unexplained investment and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the Assessing Officer erred in making addition of Rs.5 crore by adding two zeros to the figures contained in page no.17 of the seized document on the basis of statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy, even though, there is no evidence with the Assessing Officer to allege that, the assessee has made any investments in M/s Lakshmi Constructions. Although, the employee claims that, the assessee has made investment in cheque and cash, but the Assessing Officer failed to bring on record, the investment made by cheque and also not examined M/s Lakshmi Constructions to ascertain the claim of the employee. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of document found during the course of search coupled with the statement recorded from Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy held that, the employee clearly admitted to have truncated two zeros from the figures and the said amount is, in fact, investment with M/s. Lakshmi Constructions for the purpose of business. Further, the employee has explained the document and described the names and also the nature of 52 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 transactions. Therefore, from the above, it is undisputedly clear that, the assessee has made unexplained investment in his business and the same was not recorded in the books of accounts. Thus, rejected the explanation of assessee and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The learned CIT(A) further observed that, owing to discussion and finding recorded in grounds of appeal no.13, the addition is deleted as the same amounts to double taxation. In other words, the learned CIT(A) allowed relief to the assessee by allowing the benefit of telescoping towards addition sustained on account of income against expenditure.

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 document contains cash transaction of the assessee made for his business and the same has been admitted by Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Although, the assessee denies any connection with the said transaction, but, the fact remains that, said document was found in the possession of the assessee and as per the legal presumption contained under section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act, it is presumed that, said document belongs to the assessee and contents therein are true and correct. Since the assessee is unable to explain the said seized document, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition and the learned CIT(A) after considering relevant facts, has rightly treated the said entries as unaccounted business income of the assessee. The learned CIT- DR further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) has 54 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, but, erred in allowing the benefit of telescoping to the said addition, out of the addition sustained towards unaccounted business turnover, even though, the expenditure and income are entirely different and not forms part of very same seized material, which is the basis for making the addition. He, therefore, submitted that, the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on the issue of allowing benefit and telescoping should be deleted.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant documents page no.17 found during the course of search in the premises of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy. Upon perusal of the relevant document, we find that, an entry contained Rs. 5,00,000/-was recorded as business/ investment. The document further contained few names plus some recording without any purpose or narration. Basically, the document does not contain the name of the assessee. The Assessing Officer made addition only on the basis of statement of employee Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy, where he claims that, the assessee-company made investment of Rs.5 crore and the same has been recorded by truncating two zeros in the said document. The employee further explained other entry contained in the document and claims that, the assessee-company has to receive amount from various parties. The Assessing Officer on the basis of said statement, made addition towards unexplained investment, even though, there is no corroborative evidence with the Assessing Officer to allege that, assessee has made

In so far as ground taken by the Revenue in it’s cross objection on the issue of telescoping benefit, in our considered view, if any income is assessed on the basis of document found during the course of search, then, if the said income is available for explaining the expenditure or investment, which are also part of the very same seized material, then, in our considered view, the benefit of telescoping should be allowed, otherwise, it amounts to double taxation. Therefore, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to allow the benefit of telescoping towards income against expenditure and thus, we reject the grounds of cross objection taken by the Revenue.

The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no. 6 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.5 of cross objection filed by the Revenue is, addition of Rs.30 lakhs on the basis of seized document.

During the course of search proceedings at the residence of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy on 12.07.2018, a document was found and seized vide page no.19 of Annexure-A/ AHPL/BVR/RES/04. The said document contains an entry of Rs.1,05,00,000/-, and Rs.1,50,00,000/-under the Head “Loan

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee reiterated it’s stand taken before the Assessing Officer and submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer is on the basis of a ‘dumb document’ without any corroborative evidence. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant seized material observed that, going by the statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy it is very clear that, the assessee has advanced loan in cash to Lakshmi Constructions and received through cheque and cash. There is no evidence was furnished by the assessee to prove the cash transaction in his books of 58 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 accounts. Therefore, there is no error in the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make addition of Rs.30 lakhs towards loan transaction in cash. Thus, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, allowed relief to the assessee by allowing the benefit of telescoping towards addition sustained on account of unaccounted turnover from the business against unexplained expenditure/investment.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained investment on the basis of vague and dumb document, which does not even contain the name of the assessee and the purpose of investment. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further referring to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) submitted that, both the authorities heavily relied on the statement of an employee, even though, his statement is lacks evidentiary value because, the assessee never made any investment with M/s Lakshmi Constructions either in cash or cheque. The Assessing Officer failed to even carry-out to basic enquiry like ascertaining facts with Lakshmi Constructions. In absence of any basic evidence, the addition made by Assessing Officer on the basis of ‘dumb document’ cannot be sustained. Learned Counsel for the Assessee, further submitted that, in order to bring any amount for taxation, unless the basic charging section-4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is fully satisfied without any uncertainty or vagueness, no tax can be levied. In 59 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 this regard, he relied upon decision of ITAT, Jabalpur Bench in the case of ACIT vs., Satyapal Wassan [2008] 5 DTR_TRIB (Jab) (Trib) 202.

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 document contains cash transaction of the assessee made for his business and the same has been admitted by Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Although, the assessee denies any connection with the said transaction, but, the fact remains that, said document was found in the possession of the assessee and as per the legal presumption contained under section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act, it is presumed that, said document belongs to the assessee and contents therein are true and correct. Since the assessee is unable to explain the said seized document, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition and the learned CIT(A) after considering relevant facts, has rightly treated the said entries as unaccounted business income of the assessee. The learned CIT- DR further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) has upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, but, erred in allowing the benefit of telescoping to the said addition, out of the addition sustained towards unaccounted business turnover, even though, the expenditure and income are entirely different and not forms part of very same seized material, which is the basis for making the addition. He, therefore, submitted that, the 60 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on the issue of allowing benefit and telescoping should be deleted.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.30 lakhs on the basis of seized material which contains some entries. The Assessing Officer selected entries in cash and made addition as unexplained cash and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. We have carefully considered the relevant seized document page no.19. The Assessing Officer has considered certain cash entries and observed that, these are cash loans extended to M/s Laxmi Constructions and the repayment amount of Rs. 30 lakh is not accounted in books. Upon perusal of relevant entries, we find that, it only states by “Cash” without any narration from whom the cash was received and the purpose of the cash receipt. Therefore, from the above, it cannot be ascertained that, the nature of transaction whether, it is income, loan or any receipt. Therefore, in our considered view, the said the document lacks evidentiary value. Since the loose sheet is vague in nature and does not show any purpose of the transaction, in our considered view, the Assessing Officer made addition only on the basis of statement of an employee and thus, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Further, a plain reading of the document, leaves much for imagination and interpretation and clearly the essential conditions of taxation in terms of basic charging Sec.4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to certainty of taxable event, identities of principal parties to the transaction,

The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.7 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.6 of cross objection filed by the Revenue is addition made by the Assessing Officer towards undisclosed turnover of Rs.7,32,38,400/- from Aditya Sunshine Project and scaled down by the learned CIT(A) to Rs.2,41,24,900/-.

We find that, an identical issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-2014 in ITA No. 262/Hyd/2025. But for the figures, the facts and issue involved for this Asst. Year is identical and the reasons given by us in the preceding paragraph nos.34 and 35 hereinabove are applicable mutatis mutandis to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct to the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards unaccounted turnover.

The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.3 of cross- objection filed by the Revenue is addition of Rs.1,11,80,000/- as undisclosed sale receipt in cash from the business of the assessee.

During the course of search proceedings at residence of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy on 02.07.2018, loose sheets were found and seized vide page nos.48 to 79 of Annexure-A/ AHPL/BVR/RES/02, as per which, the cash transactions were found. During the course of search, a statement was recorded from Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy and confronted those seized documents and in response to a specific question, he stated that, these are the actual date-wise transactions made in cash (cash receipts and cash payments) of the assessee. The Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to explain, whether these transactions are accounted for in the books of accounts and also explain why the same should not be treated as unexplained cash or expenditure. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the seized document page nos.63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70 and 74 coupled

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the contents of seized material page nos. 63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70 and 74 are vague and not relate to the assessee. No specific explanation was sought from the employee, and he generally stated they are actual transactions without supplying further necessary details to bring-out the transactions and to demonstrate that, such transactions are taken place. Since the document is not reliable and not having any evidentiary value, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy cannot be sustained. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of relevant seized material observed that, going by the contents of seized material coupled with statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy recorded during the course of search, it is clearly evident that, these transactions pertains to the business of the assessee and further, as per the provisions of section 292C of the Act, the assessee is required to provide credible explanation or rebut the evidence found during the course of search. Since the assessee is failed to provide any explanation with regard to 65 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 contents of the seized document and further, the employee categorically admitted that these are the day-to-day transactions of the assessee made in cash, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition towards cash transactions on the basis of seized documents. Thus, the learned CIT(A) upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) further noted that, since it pertains to the business of the assessee, the same should be treated as unaccounted business income and the provisions of section 115BBE of the Act, cannot be applied.

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and the Revenue has filed cross objections.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in making addition towards unaccounted business income on the basis of loose sheets i.e., page nos.57, 58 and 61, even though, the said loose sheet does not have any evidentiary value and it lacks specific information, which can be attributable to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, the non- speaking seized loose sheet does not relate to the material evidence and in absence of independent corroborative evidence, no addition can be made on the basis of the same. He further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) applied the legal presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act, the said presumption is restricted to accepting genuineness of the document found during the course of search and it does not 66 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 expand to interpretation of the document. Since the document does not show any taxable event which could be taxed in terms of basic charging section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said document to cannot be sustained.

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 document contains cash transaction of the assessee made for his business and the same has been admitted by Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Although, the assessee denies any connection with the said transaction, but, the fact remains that, above document was found in the possession of the assessee and as per the legal presumption contained under section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act, it is presumed that, said document belongs to the assessee and contents therein are true and correct. Since the assessee is unable to explain the said seized document, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition and the learned CIT(A) after considering relevant facts, has rightly treated the said entries as unaccounted business income of the assessee. The learned CIT- DR further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) has upheld the addition made by the Assessing Officer, but, erred in allowing the benefit of telescoping to the said addition, out of the addition sustained towards unaccounted business turnover, even though, the expenditure and income are entirely different and not forms part of very same seized material, which is the 67 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 basis for making the addition. He, therefore, submitted that, the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on the issue of allowing benefit and telescoping should be deleted.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.1,11,80,000/- on the basis of seized material which contains some entries. The Assessing Officer selected entries in cash and made addition as unexplained cash and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. We have carefully considered the relevant seized document page nos.63, 65, 66, 68, 69, 70 and 74. The Assessing Officer has considered these documents and observed that, these are the day-to-day cash transactions (cash receipts and cash payments). Upon perusal of relevant entries, we find that, it only states by “Cash” without any narration from whom the cash was received and the purpose of the cash receipt. Therefore, from the above, it cannot be ascertained that, the nature of transaction whether, it is income, loan or any receipt. Therefore, in our considered view, the said the document lacks evidentiary value. Since the loose sheets are vague in nature and does not show any purpose of the transaction, in our considered view, the addition made by the Assessing Officer only on the basis of statement of an employee cannot be sustained. Further, a plain reading of these documents, leaves much for imagination and interpretation and clearly the essential conditions of taxation in terms of basic charging Sec.4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 relating to certainty of taxable event, identities of principal parties to the transaction,

The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.5 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.4 of cross

We find that, an identical issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-2014 in ITA No.262/Hyd/2025. But for the figures, the facts and issue involved for this Asst. Year is identical and the reasons given by us in the preceding paragraph nos.34 and 35 hereinabove are applicable mutatis mutandis to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct to the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards unaccounted turnover.

In the result appeal I.T.(S.S.).A.No.264/Hyd./2025 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2015-2016 is allowed and the cross-objection C.O.No.10/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2015-2016 filed by the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.(S.S.).A.No.265/Hyd./2025 – A.Y. 2016-2017 [Assessee] :

The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground of appeal no.4 of assessee’s appeal is addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover from Aditya Sunshine Project for Rs.50,21,000/- and sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.8,21,000/-.

We find that, an identical issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-2014

In the result appeal I.T.(S.S.).A.No.265/Hyd./2025 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2016-2017 is allowed I.T.(S.S.).A.No.266/Hyd./2025 – A.Y. 2017-2018 [Assessee] :

The first issue that came-up for consideration through ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal is addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted turnover from Aditya Sunshine Project for Rs.64,61,600/- and scaled down by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.14,61,600/-.

We find that, an identical issue has been considered by us in assessee’s own case for the assessment year 2013-2014 in ITA No.262/Hyd/2025. But for the figures, the facts and issue involved for this Asst. Year is identical to the issue which we had considered for Asst. year 2013-14. The reasons given by us in the preceding paragraph nos.34 and 35 hereinabove are applicable mutatis mutandis to this appeal, as well. Therefore, for similar reasons, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on 71 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 this issue and direct to the Assessing Officer to delete the addition made towards unaccounted turnover.

In the result appeal I.T.(S.S.).A.No.266/Hyd./2025 filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2017-2018 is allowed.

The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.3 of cross objection filed by the Revenue is addition of Rs.6.91 crore as alleged unexplained money and deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground of double taxation and by allowing the benefit of telescoping.

During the course of search and seizure operation at the residence of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy, some cheques and promissory notes were found, and such cheques and promissory notes were tabulated and the total amount HAS BEEN worked- out at Rs.13.25 crores. The cheques and promissory notes found during the course of search were confronted to Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy and statement u/s 132(4) was recorded. In response to question no. 10, he stated that, “the promissory notes and cheques belongs to my finance business, for which, I have obtained as a security towards lending money to various parties”. He further stated that, “I lent money to various people on interest @ 1.50ps and Rs.2.50ps and all the amounts were lent by cash only”. The statement recorded from Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy

Further, in the ITR filed for the assessment year 2018-2019, the assessee-company has offered only an amount of Rs.1.33 crore as against Rs.5 crore admitted at the time of search. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee was asked to furnish the explanation in regard to document found during the course of search and why the addition should not be made towards unexplained money. In response, the assessee submitted that, out of Rs.5 crore admitted during the course of search, only Rs.1.33 crore is money lent by the Company and the remaining balance of promissory notes of Rs.3.67 crore in the name of P.V. Prabhakar Rao and P Krishnamurthy which is only a proposal and not actual money lent by the company. The Assessing Officer, after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant cheques and promissory notes observed that, the assessee has taken a stand before the Investigation

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the cheques and promissory notes found in the residential premises of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy does not belong to the assessee and further, the employee himself has admitted that, he is involved in money lending business in the personal capacity and also lent money in cash. Further, the Assessing Officer has conveniently considered the statement of Sri V. Kota Reddy, Managing Director of the assessee-company and ignored the statement of the employee for this addition, even though, all other additions made by the Assessing Officer are on the basis of statement of employee. Since the document found in the premises of Sri B. Venkata

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal and the Revenue has filed cross objections.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A. V. Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards money lending business for Rs.6.91 crore as unexplained money, even though, the Assessing Officer has made the said addition without issuing show cause notice and seeking an explanation from the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, the cheques and promissory notes seized from the residential premises of the employee does not belongs to the assessee. Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy clearly admitted in his statement that, he was involved in money lending business in his individual capacity. The Assessing Officer made addition only on the basis of statement of Sri V Kota Reddy and ignored the statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy for this addition, although, the sole basis for the Assessing Officer to make various additions for this assessment year and also for other assessment years is the statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy. In the cheques and promissory notes found during the course of search, the name of the assessee is not mentioned. In absence of any evidence to allege that, said document belong to the assessee, the addition made by the Assessing Officer only on the 76 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 basis of the statement of an employee cannot be sustained, more particularly, when a statement given by the employee has been subsequently withdrawn by filing retraction statement. Therefore, he submitted that, addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

Shri 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) on the issue of sustaining the addition submitted that, the document found during the course of search being cheques and promissory notes clearly shows unaccounted transactions in money lending business by the assessee company. Further, Sri V Kota Reddy, in his statement category admitted that, the seized promissory notes belong to the company in respect of money lending business and the same is outside the books of accounts. Further, the assessee itself was admitted Rs.1.33 crore undisclosed income in the return of income filed for the assessment year 2018-2019 in respect of money lending business and claimed that, the amount invested in money lending business is only to the extent of Rs.1.33 crore, but, not Rs.5 crore as admitted during the course of search. Therefore, the Assessing Officer on the basis of relevant evidence, has rightly made addition towards amount invested in money lending business. Although, the learned CIT(A) in principle sustained the addition, but, deleted the addition by allowing the benefit of telescoping, even though the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unaccounted income being unaccounted turnover from business and the addition made towards

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.6.91 crore on the basis of cheques and promissory notes found during the course of search in the premises of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy and as per the cheques and promissory notes, total of said cheques and promissory notes has been worked-out at Rs.13.25 crore. The sole basis for the Assessing Officer to make the addition towards unexplained investment in money lending business is, statement of Sri V. Kota Reddy made during the course of search, where he has explained the cheques and promissory notes and admitted that, they belongs to the money lending business of the assessee company carried out in cash and further, the same is outside the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer took support from the admission of the assessee during the course of search for Rs.5 crore on this account and subsequent filing of return of income admitting a sum of Rs.1.33 crore towards unaccounted investment in money lending business. According to the Assessing Officer, there is sufficient evidence in the form of cheques and promissory notes to hold that, the assessee is involved in the money lending business and the same is not 78 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 recorded in the regular books of accounts maintained for the year under consideration.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer to make addition towards unexplained investment in money lending business and reasons given by the learned CIT(A) to sustain the addition towards unexplained investment in money lending business of Rs.6.91 crore in light of various averments of learned Counsel for the Assessee and we ourselves do not subscribe to the reasons given by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A) for the simple reason that, the Assessing Officer has made the addition without issuing show-cause notice seeking explanation from the assessee. In the show cause notice dated 23.06.2021, the Assessing Officer did not propose the addition. Therefore, the assessee could not explain the facts before the Assessing Officer. The Assessing Officer made addition on the basis of his interpretation of the seized document and also the statement recorded from Sri V. Kota Reddy. Since the statement was also not part of the show cause notice, the same cannot, now be considered as evidence for making the addition. Therefore, on this count itself, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained.

Coming back to the evidence considered by the Assessing Officer to make the addition. Admittedly, certain cheques and promissory notes were found during the course of search in the residential premises of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy. The assessee furnished relevant cheques and promissory notes

It is an admitted fact that, in the cheques and promissory notes there is no reference of any name of the assessee. Further, Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in the statement recorded during the course of search stated that, he is carrying out money lending business in his individual capacity and it is 80 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 nothing to do with the assessee company. The Assessing Officer while making addition has conveniently ignored the statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy and considered the statement of Sri V. Kota Reddy, even though, the said statement has been withdrawn by filing a retraction statement. Further, if we go through the relevant question and answer in the statement recorded from Sri V Kota Reddy, he never admitted the fact that, the entire promissory notes belong to the assessee and further, has filed a retraction statement by co-relating the evidence and finally admitted a sum of Rs.1.33 crore on this account. Therefore, going by the admission and subsequent retraction and the statement of Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy, it is difficult to attribute the entire cheques and promissory notes to the assessee and its money lending business. Although, the assessee has explained these facts, the Assessing Officer has made addition only on the basis of statement of Sri V. Kota Reddy, even though, the said statement is vague in nature and has no evidentiary/ supplementary or corroborative evidence, which supports the statement of the Managing Director of the assessee company. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of statement of Sri V. Kota Reddy cannot be sustained, when such statement has been subsequently withdrawn by filing a retraction statement.

We further note that, although, an admission in a statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act is as good as a piece of evidence, but, it is not a conclusive evidence and in 81 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 order to make an addition, it is essential for the Assessing Officer to bring on record, corroborate evidence to substantiate the statement recorded from any person and this legal principle is supported by the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Pullangode Rubber Produce Co. Ltd., vs., State of Kerala And Anr. (1973) 91 ITR 18 (SC). The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Sarwan Singh vs., State of Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 held that, “a confession may be treated as voluntary however that by itself may not be suffice. For the confession to be accepted as valid evidence, it is necessary to establish that, the confession is true”. In the present case, going by the evidence on record, the statement recorded from the assessee cannot be considered as good evidence. Further, it is very clear from the statement recorded from the Managing Director of the assessee company that, admission given on this account is voluntary. Therefore, in our considered view, on the basis of voluntary admission, further addition cannot be made without any evidence to support the said addition. The learned CIT(A) without considering the relevant facts, has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set-aside the Order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete addition made towards unexplained investment in money lending business for Rs. 6.91 crores.

In so far as ground taken by the Revenue in cross objection on the issue of telescoping benefit, in our considered view, if any income is assessed on the basis of document found during the course of search, then, if the said income is available

The next issue that came for consideration from ground no. 5 of assessee’s appeal and ground no.4 of cross- objection filed by the Revenue, is addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained money of Rs.2.69 crore and sustained by the CIT(A) to the extent of Rs.2,37,70,000/-.

During the course of search proceedings, cash receipts relate to Sri V. Kota Reddy and his entities were found at the residence of Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy and the same were seized. The cash receipts relate to cash payments made by assessee viz., Sri Aditya Homes Private Limited for various purposes. These cash receipts were tabulated and confronted with Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy, and a sworn statement was recorded. In the statement, Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy has explained that these cash transactions are related to the Company. The total of such cash receipts is worked-out to Rs.13,07,05,980/-. Further, the seized cash receipts and statement was confronted the Sri. V. Kota Reddy, and a statement was recorded. In response to specific question, he has admitted the above amount of Rs.13,07,05,980/- as additional

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

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsels for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in principle in 85 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 sustaining the addition of Rs.2,37,70,000/- as unexplained money on the basis of cash receipts found during the course of search, even though, the assessee explained that, said cash receipts are either accounted in the books of accounts being cheque payments or not pertains to the assessment year under consideration. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, if we go through the relevant cash receipts, few cash receipts bearing the dates falling in the years 2012, 2013 and 2014 and, therefore, do not relate to the year under consideration. The assessee after due consideration of relevant evidence, has rightly reconciled with it’s books of accounts and admitted additional income of Rs.10,32,05,980/- as against the admission of Rs.13,07,05,990/- made during the course of search. Although, these facts have been explained to the learned CIT(A), but, the learned CIT(A) has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer without accepting any reasons. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition sustained by the learned CIT(A) should be deleted.

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 has made addition on the basis of cash receipts found during the course of search which were not accounted in the books of accounts of the assessee. Further, Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy has quantified the total of above cash receipts and has worked-out a sum of Rs.13,01,05,980/-. However, the assessee claims that after reconciliation of the 86 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 books of accounts, the same has been worked-out to Rs.10,32,05,980/- and the same has been offered in the return of income filed for the year under consideration. The assessee could not explain the remaining amount of cash receipts with any evidence. Although, the assessee claims that, said cash receipts does not belong to the year under consideration, but, the fact remains that, Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy himself has quantified the amount and stated that, these are cash expenditure incurred for the purpose of business and are outside the books of accounts. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made the addition and the learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld. The CIT-DR further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A), in principle, sustained the addition, but, allowed relief to the assessee on the ground of double taxation by considering the principles of telescoping, even though, the assessee failed to make-out a ground for the benefit of telescoping with relevant evidence. Therefore, submitted that, the findings recorded by the learned CIT(A) on the issue of telescoping should be deleted.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant cash receipts which are available in the paper book filed by the assessee and further few cash receipts have been reproduced by the learned CIT(A) in his order. Upon careful perusal of the relevant cash receipts, we find

The facts with regard to the impugned issue are that, during the course of search proceedings at the residence of Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy on 12.07.2018, a document was found and seized vide page no.5 of Annexure-A-AHPL/BVR/ RES/02. The document contains details of amount to be received from landowners of Aditya Sunshine Project as on 08.09.2017. Further, the amount was worked out in view of land surrendered by them, because the actual extent of flats assigned or allocated to landowners was more than the built-up area due to them and for excess built-up area they were required to pay additional amounts. As per the annexure, it is noticed that the total of such amount due as on that date was at Rs.5,91,43,290/- which were shown as ‘receivable’. The Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to explain whether said receivables were accounted as income and if so, to produce relevant ledger account in respect of the claim. The assessee replied that, seized material is a 90 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 statement generated by the marketing team by reconciling the area of flats and possible excess claim that can be made from the landowners of Aditya Sunshine Project. Since, the amount is only receivable and not actually received, the question of offering said receivable as ‘income’ does not arise. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant documents found during the course of search and also taking note of explanation of the assessee, made addition of Rs.5,91,43,290/- as unexplained business income towards amount receivable from the landowners.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee contended that, it is only a statement prepared by the marketing team to ascertain the transaction with landowners for allotment of flats in view of the land surrendered by them and in case, any excess area of flat is allotted, the possible amount receivable from them. However, this is not an actual amount received by the assessee and, therefore, the Assessing Officer is erred in making the addition on the basis of said document.

The learned CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the seized document observed that, the document explicitly mentioned the amount of Rs.5,91,43,290/- receivable as on 08.09.2017 arising from additional payments required for extra area of flats allotted to the land owners for their entitlement as per the JDA and extra work done in the said flats allotted. The Assessing Officer

Aggrieved by the Order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal and the Revenue has filed cross-objections.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsel for the Assessee, submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition made on account of unaccounted income from business on the basis of loose sheet-5 without any independent corroborative evidence, which suggest the assessee has received

Sri Narender Kumar Naik learned CIT-DR along with Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR for the Revenue, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the document clearly shows amount receivable from landowners towards extra area allotted in lieu of land surrounded by the landowners. The employee clearly admitted in the statement that, said document pertains to Aditya Sunshine Project. Further, the assessee has reconciled the entire statement with reference to one cash receipt, where the assessee has received Rs.19 lakhs from one landowner. Therefore, the argument of the Counsel for the Assessee that, this is a dumb document, and addition cannot be made on the 93 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 basis of this document, is devoid of merits and cannot be accepted. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant documents, has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer and, therefore, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We have also carefully considered the relevant page no.5 of seized document found during the course of search. Upon careful verification of the said document, we find that, it contains some tabular information regarding details of amount payable/receivable from the landowners in respect of Aditya Sunshine Project as on 08.09.2017. The Assessing Officer on the basis of the said document made addition of Rs.5,91,43,290/- towards amount receivable from landowners and conveniently ignored the very same document in respect of amount payable to landlords. Further, the document itself clearly shows that, it is not an actual transaction and amount received by the assessee from the landowners. The document does not even show whether the said amount is received for the year under consideration or receivable in the subsequent financial year. Further, as per the seized document, the net amount receivable from the landowner is only Rs.21,14,233/- + Rs.8,99,999/-. From the contents of the document, it is difficult to ascertain, whether it is receivable or payable. Further, since the document itself shows that, this amount is only receivable and not actually received by the assessee, the question of taxation of the said amount for the year

The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.7 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs.18 lakhs as alleged unexplained investment.

During the course of search proceedings, a document vide page no.86 of Annexure-A/AHPL/BVR/RES/03 was found and seized, which contains the details of dates and amounts. A statement was recorded from Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy and document was confronted. In response to the specific question, he stated that, the document contains payments made to VR and amount received back. The Assessing Officer called-upon the assessee to explain the contents of the document. Since, the assessee could not offer any explanation, the Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18 lakhs as unexplained investment and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. On appeal, the learned CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, allowed relief to the assessee on the ground of double taxation by allowing the benefit of telescoping.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsels for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition on the basis of page no.86 of Annexure-A/AHPL/BVR/ RES/03, even though, the said document does not contain any 96 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 details of person to whom amount has been paid and received. The Assessing Officer made addition only on the basis of statement of employee Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy, even though, the said statement is vague in nature, without any specific information as to what is the nature of transaction. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

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 document shows certain entries and the same has been explained by Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy that, the same has been amount given to VR. The Assessing Officer on the basis of admission of Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy, has made addition as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the addition made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.18 lakhs on the basis of seized material which contains some entries. The Assessing Officer selected entries in cash and made addition as unexplained cash and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. We have carefully considered the relevant seized document page no.86. The Assessing Officer has considered the seized document and observed that, these are the day-to-day cash transactions (cash

In the result, I.T.(S.S.).A.No.267/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019 of the Assessee is partly allowed and Cross Objection C.O.No.11/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019 of the Revenue is dismissed.

The first issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.4 of assessee’s appeal is addition of alleged unexplained business expenditure of Rs.2,53,62,341/-.

During the course of search, at the residence of Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy on 12.07.2018, a document was found and seized vide page no.22 Annexure-A/AHPL/BVR/RES/-02, as per which, a sum of Rs.2,53,62,341/- was shown as amount spent on account of project Aditya Royal Farm, Tolichowki. The assessee was requested to state, whether said amount is accounted for in the books of accounts and also explain why the 99 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 same should not be treated as unexplained expenditure. The assessee, in reply submitted that, the seized material referred to represents unsigned statement prepared by lower staff and the statement is not reliable. The Assessing Officer after considering the relevant documents and reply of the assessee, made addition of Rs.2,53,62,341/- as unexplained expenditure and brought to tax as per the provisions of section 115 BBE of the Act.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee contended that, it is a plain paper without any reference to the name of assessee and date of payment. In absence of name and the year of transaction, the same cannot be brought to tax for the year under consideration. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taken note of relevant seized document observed that, going by the contents of the document, it seems that, the assessee has incurred certain expenditure in connection with Aditya Royal Farm, Tolichowki, Hyderabad. Although, there is no reference of any date of payment, but, once the document is found in the possession of the assessee, the same can be considered as the document belongs to the year of search and amount referred to therein are expenditure incurred for the year of the search. Therefore, the learner CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer towards unexplained expenditure. However, allowed the relief on the ground of double taxation by allowing benefit of telescoping.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsels for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in sustaining the addition towards unaccounted expenditure on the basis of unsigned and un-named document, even though, the seized document does not contain any date of transaction and year, in which, the said document pertains. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

Sri Narender Kumar Naik, learned CIT-DR along with Dr. Sachin Kumar, learned Sr. AR for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of the learned CIT(A) submitted that, the document clearly shows various expenditure incurred for Aditya Royal Farm, Tolichowki Hyderabad Project. The document also contains specific names and purpose of payment. The employee has accepted the contents of document and stated that, these are cash expenditure incurred for the purpose of business. The Assessing Officer and the CIT(A) after considering the relevant facts, has rightly made the addition and thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We have also gone through the relevant documents page-22 of Annexure-A/ AHPL/BVR/RES/-02. In the said document, the name of the assessee does not appear. Further, there is no date of 101 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 transaction to ascertain whether it pertains to any of the assessment year including for the year under consideration. The Assessing Officer made addition only on the basis of the statement of the employee without any enquiry as to whether the transaction have been taken place or not.? In absence of the name of the assessee, details of the previous year of the alleged transaction, the conditions of charging section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 are not fulfilled, i.e., certainty of taxable event, parties to transaction and year of transaction and in absence of it, no additions can be made on the basis of said document. In our considered view, the document relied upon by the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT(A), at best, can be considered as a plain sheet and a ‘dumb document’ without any substance in the contents. Therefore, we are the considered view that, the Assessing Officer is erred in making addition on the basis of page-22 as unexplained expenditure and the learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, has simply sustained addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set-aside the order of the learned CIT(A) on this issue and direct to the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.5 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs.25,50,000/- towards unexplained cash made by the Assessing Officer and sustained by the learned CIT(A) to the tune of Rs.10 lakhs as alleged unaccounted business income.

During the search proceedings, a document was seized relating to receipt from customer vide page no.48 of A/

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, it is a plain paper without

Aggrieved by the order of the learned CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsels for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) was erred in making addition towards unaccounted business income on the basis of loose sheets i.e., page no.49 of A/AHPL/BVR/RES/-03, even though, the said loose sheet does not have any evidentiary value and it 104 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 lacks specific information, which can be attributable to the assessee. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, non-speaking seized loose sheet does not relate to the material evidence and in absence of independent corroborative evidence, no addition can be made on the basis of the same. He further submitted that, although, the learned CIT(A) applied the legal presumption under sections 132(4A) and 292C of the Act, but presumption is restricted to accepting genuineness of the document found during the course of search and it does not expand to interpretation of the document. Since the document does not show any taxable event which could be taxed in terms of basic charging section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of the said document to cannot be sustained.

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 document contains cash transaction of the assessee made for his business and the same has been admitted by Sri B. Venkata Ramireddy in his statement recorded under section 132(4) of the Act. Although, the assessee denies any connection with the said transaction, but, the fact remains that, said document was found in the possession of the assessee and as per the legal presumption contained under section 132(4A) r.w.s. 292C of the Act, it is presumed that, said document belongs to the assessee and contents therein are true and correct. Since the assessee is unable to explain the said seized document, the Assessing

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. The Assessing Officer made addition of Rs.25,50,000/- on the basis of seized material which contains some entries. The Assessing Officer selected entries in cash and made addition as unexplained cash and brought to tax under section 115BBE of the Act. We have carefully considered the relevant seized document page nos.49 of A/AHPL/BVR/RES/-03. The Assessing Officer has considered the seized document and observed that, these are the day-to-day cash transactions (cash receipts and cash payments). Upon perusal of relevant entries, we find that, it only states by “Cash” without any narration from whom the cash was received and the purpose of the cash receipt. Therefore, from the above, it cannot be ascertained that, the nature of transaction whether, it is income, loan or any receipt. Therefore, in our considered view,

The next issue that came-up for consideration from ground no.6 of assessee’s appeal is addition of Rs.1,08,45,520/- towards unexplained cash.

During the course of search proceedings, document page-88 of A/AHPL/BVR/RES/-03 was found and seized. It is noticed that, several transactions have been made with Sri Mallikarjun. In this regard, a statement on oath was recorded from Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy, where he has stated that, amounts were received in cash. The Assessing Officer called- upon the assessee to explain the same and confirm whether the same is recorded in the books of accounts or not and if not, to show cause as to why the same should not be brought to tax as unexplained credits. The assessee, in reply stated that, the same are rough calculations and scribbling, which has no relation to the assessee and is an unsigned paper. The Assessing Officer

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT(A). Before the learned CIT(A), the assessee submitted that, the document is vague, lacks name of the assessee and is not relate to any specific assessment year. Further, there is no details as to what the contents of the document and purpose of the payment. The Assessing Officer without appreciating the relevant facts, has simply made addition on the basis of dumb document. Therefore, submitted that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of relevant page-88 of Annexure-A/AHPL/BVR/RES/-03 and also statement of Sri B. Venkatarami Reddy held that, there are clear recordings in respect of various transactions with Sri Mallikarjun and the assessee. The assessee could not explain as to the nature of transaction and further, whether the same is accounted in the books of accounts or not. Therefore, rejected the explanation of assessee and sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. However, since the addition pertains to business transaction, the learned CIT(A) directed the Assessing Officer to consider it as unaccounted business income and to tax under normal provisions of the Act instead of the provisions of section 115 BBE of the Act.

Sri C. Srinivas Reddy, Advocate along with Sri A V Raghuram, Advocate-Learned Counsels for the Assessee submitted that, the learned CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition, even though, the said document lacks evidentiary value and further, there is no corroborate evidence to support the addition. Learned Counsel for the Assessee further submitted that, there is no principal parties to the transaction and the year of transaction in the document. Further, the Assessing Officer has not carried out any enquiry to ascertain details contained in the said document, whether it relates to any of the activities of the assessee. The Assessing Officer has not established who is Mr. Mallikarjun and what is the relationship with the assessee. In absence of any details, the addition made by the Assessing Officer cannot be sustained. Therefore, he submitted that, addition made by the Assessing Officer should be deleted.

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 document clearly shows certain transactions with Mr. Mallikarjuna. Since the document was found in the premises of the assessee, it is the responsibility of the assessee to explain the contents. Since the assessee could not explain the contents of the document, the Assessing Officer has rightly made addition on the basis of said document as unexplained cash credit. The learned CIT(A) after considering the relevant submissions of the 110 ITA.Nos.262 to 268/Hyd./2025, ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 And C.O.Nos.9, 10 & 11/Hyd./2025 assessee and the document, has rightly treated the same as unaccounted business income and thus, the order of the learned CIT(A) should be upheld.

We have heard both the parties, perused the material on record and the orders of the authorities below. We have also considered relevant page-88 of A/AHPL/BVR/RES/-03. Upon perusal of the document, we find that, there are certain recordings under the Head “Mallikarjun”. From the above, it is difficult to ascertain what is the nature of transactions, whether it is a sale or purchase. Although, one entry shows some amount for registration and few entries for amount in cheque or cash, but, there is no evidence with the Assessing Officer to allege that, at least the amount referred to under cheque has been matched with the books of accounts of the assessee. Further, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence to allege that, some document has been registered either sale or purchase. In absence of any details as to the nature of transaction and principal parties to the transaction, in our considered view, the basic conditions provided under section 4 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for charging the income tax are not satisfied. Therefore, we are of the considered view that, the addition made by the Assessing Officer on the basis of said document cannot be sustained. The learned CIT(A) without appreciating the relevant facts, has simply sustained the addition made by the Assessing Officer. Thus, we set-aside the Order of the learned CIT(A) and direct the Assessing Officer to delete the addition.

To sum-up, I.T.(S.S.).A.Nos.262/Hyd./2025 of the Assessee is partly allowed and ITA.No.98/Hyd./2025 of the Revenue is dismissed. I.T.(S.S.).A.Nos.263, 264, 265, 266 & 268/Hyd./2025 of the Assessee are allowed and I.T.(S.S.)A. No.267/Hyd./2025 of the Assessee is partly allowed. Cross Objection C.O.Nos.9, 10 and 11/Hyd./2025 of the Revenue are dismissed. A copy of this common order be placed in the respective case files.