MANOJ KUMAR CHOWRAH,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1), HYDERABAD

PDF · subscribers
ITA 1614/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad21 January 2026AY 2017-18Bench: SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE (Accountant Member), SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE (Judicial Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee had provided sufficient evidence to explain the cash payment for property purchase, setting aside the addition. However, the Tribunal upheld the disallowance of cost of improvement due to lack of supporting bills and vouchers.

What were the facts?

The assessee had cash deposits and made investments in property. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions for unexplained cash deposits and investments, and disallowed cost of improvement due to lack of evidence. The CIT(A) confirmed most of these additions, allowing only a partial relief on cash deposits.

What were the issues?

Whether cash deposits and property investments were adequately explained by the assessee, and whether cost of improvement is allowable without bills and vouchers.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad

For Appellant: Shri K. Vinoth Kannan, Sr

आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:-

1. 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Manoj Kumar Chowrah, 1-7-500/3, Hari Nagar, Zamistanpur, Musheerabad, Hyderabad. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 4(1), Hyderabad.

More judgments on Section 69A

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →