MENAKURU SUKUMAR REDDY,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT(A), CHENNAI

ITA 993/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 March 2026AY 2017-1864 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the assessee provided details for loans and advances, including identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of creditors, which are conditions for not making additions under Section 68/69. The Tribunal also observed that these were running accounts with repayments made in subsequent years.

What were the facts?

The assessee, a HUF engaged in property renting and receiving interest income, had its assessment reopened for AYs 2015-16, 2016-17, and 2017-18. The Assessing Officer made significant additions under Section 69A for undisclosed income, which were partly sustained by the CIT(A). The assessee appealed these additions.

What were the issues?

Whether additions made under Section 69A for unexplained credits and loans/advances were justified, considering the assessee's submissions regarding the identity, genuineness, and creditworthiness of the creditors and the nature of running accounts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 68

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Cases cited in this judgment(5)Show list

Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.

Heard together (2 matters)

ITA No.1639/Chny/2025
ITA No.1644/Chny/2025

Read from the judgment's own cause title. This page is filed under one of them.

PAGE-2 :-2-: ITA Nos: 991, 992, 993, 1639 & 1644/Chny/2025 The present batch of appeals comprises ITA Nos.991 to 993/Chny/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 and 2017-18, which have been preferred by the assessee. Further, ITA Nos.1639 and 1664/Chny/2025 relating to the Assessment Years 2015-16 and 2017-18 have been preferred by the Revenue. Since common issues are involved in these appeals, they were heard together and are being disposed of by this consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

2.

At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 04 days in filing the appeal by the revenue in both ITA No.1639/Chny/2025 and in ITA No.1644/Chny/2025 and the revenue explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeals. The revenue has filed affidavits stating the reasons for delay in filing the appeals is due to 'cases having time barring date for completion of pending assessment on 31.03.2025 were to be completed and to trace the miscellaneous records of the case took some time'. Hence, the appeals could not be filed before the limitation period. After considering the affidavits filed by the revenue and also hearing both the parties, we find that the

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →