PRODDATURI SANJAY KUMAR,HYDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-10(4), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 157/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 April 2025AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member)1 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that Section 69 of the Income Tax Act applies only to unrecorded investments. Since the business transaction was routed through banking channels and recorded, the addition made by the AO was unjustified.

What were the facts?

The assessee, engaged in retail cloth trading, filed an income return under the presumptive scheme (Section 44AD). The AO noticed substantial credit card payments exceeding declared turnover and treated a portion of cash deposits as unexplained investment.

What were the issues?

Whether the AO was justified in treating a sum deposited in cash as unexplained investment under Section 69 when the business transaction was routed through banking channels and recorded?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 44AD,Section 69,Section 143(3),Section 115BBE

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, HYDERABAD BENCHES “SM-A”, HYDERABAD

Before: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE & SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT

For Appellant: Shri B. Prabhakar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri SBR Kumar Laghimsetti
Hearing: 07/04/2025

आदेशकी प्रतितिति अग्रेतिि/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. तिर्धारििी/The Assessee : Proddaturi Sanjay Kumar, 7-2-967 & 968, Station Road, Secunderabad – 500003, Telangana. 2. िधजस्व/ The Revenue : Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(4), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 44AD

All 2,222 judgments and leading authorities on Section 44AD →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →