Case Law Details
ACIT Vs Rutuja Projects (ITAT Hyderabad)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal and upheld the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] deleting an addition of ₹1,05,96,934 made under Section 69 of the Income Tax Act on account of alleged unexplained investment. The Tribunal also allowed the assessee’s cross-objection supporting the CIT(A)’s order.
The assessee, a partnership firm engaged in the business of construction and development of residential flats, had filed its return for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20 declaring an income of ₹1,000. Search proceedings were conducted in the case of another person, Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah, during which a loose sheet (Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01) was seized. The Assessing Officer (AO) considered the seized document to pertain to the assessee and initiated proceedings under Section 153C after recording satisfaction.
The AO relied on the contents of the seized document to conclude that the assessee had made unexplained investment in the purchase of two immovable properties. According to the AO, the document indicated that the assessee’s share in one property included cash payments constituting “on-money.” The AO also assumed that another nearby property purchased by the assessee had been acquired at the same rate per square yard and determined the assessee’s total unexplained investment at ₹1,05,96,934, which was added under Section 69.
The assessee challenged both the jurisdiction under Section 153C and the addition on merits. It denied making any cash payments and stated that all consideration had been paid through banking channels as reflected in the registered sale deeds. The assessee also pointed out that the seized document neither belonged to nor related to it.
The CIT(A) observed that the AO had relied solely on the seized loose sheet without producing any independent evidence to establish payment of on-money. With respect to the second property, the CIT(A) found that the AO had merely assumed the same purchase rate without any supporting material. Consequently, the addition relating to both properties was deleted.
The CIT(A) also noted that the same seized document had earlier been relied upon by the AO while making an addition in the hands of the seller, Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah. That addition had already been deleted by the CIT(A) on the ground that the seized paper was a “dumb document” unsupported by independent evidence. The Tribunal had subsequently upheld that decision in the seller’s case, dismissing the Revenue’s appeal. The CIT(A), therefore, followed the same reasoning in the assessee’s case.
Before the Tribunal, the Revenue argued that the seized document matched the details recorded in the registered sale deeds, including the area of the property and cheque payments, and therefore established payment of on-money. It contended that the earlier Tribunal decision in the seller’s case was distinguishable and relied on judicial precedents to support its stand.
The assessee submitted that the AO had failed to produce any corroborative material beyond the loose sheet and that the Tribunal had already treated the same document as a “dumb document” in the seller’s case. It argued that, in the absence of any distinguishing facts, no contrary view could be taken.
The Tribunal agreed with the assessee and upheld the CIT(A)’s findings. It observed that the AO had not produced any independent evidence to corroborate the alleged payment of on-money and had relied exclusively on the seized loose sheet. Referring to the earlier decision in the seller’s case, the Tribunal held that the same document had already been treated as a “dumb document” incapable of sustaining an addition on a standalone basis.
The Tribunal further relied on the Punjab & Haryana High Court’s decision in Paramjit Singh v. ITO, which held that the contents of a registered sale deed cannot be displaced merely by oral or hearsay evidence. It also referred to the jurisdictional High Court’s decision in PCIT v. Tarun Kumar Goyal, which held that additions based solely on an uncorroborated dumb document are unsustainable.
The Tribunal concluded that, in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, the AO was not justified in disregarding the registered sale deeds or treating the assessee as having paid on-money. Since the same seized document had already been rejected as a dumb document in the seller’s case, it could not be relied upon to sustain an addition against the purchaser in the same transaction. Accordingly, the Tribunal found no infirmity in the CIT(A)’s order, dismissed the Revenue’s appeal, and allowed the assessee’s cross-objection.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
The present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 14/07/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 153C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 19/03/2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. Also, the assessee firm is before us as a Cross-Objector. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred both in law and on facts of the case in granting relief to the assessee.
2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act of Rs.1,05,96,934/- following the order of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the Mr. Lijngaiah Amidyala for AY 2019-20 in ITA No. 702/Hyd/2022, dated 26.04.2023 which has not been accepted by the department.
3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary.”
The assessee company, on the other hand, has supported the CIT() order by raising the following cross-objections:
“1. The Order of the Ld.CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad has justified in allowing the appeal of the Assessee on merits.
2. The Ld. AO erred on the fact that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the additions and allowed the Appeal of the Appellant after fairly considering the facts and submissions made before the Ld. CIT (A).
3. The Ld. AO has failed in appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition made based on a dumb document seized.
4. The Ld. AO has erred in considering the decision of Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Amidyala Lingaiah ITA: 702/Hyd/2022.
5. The Appellant craves to add/alter/modify any other grounds at the time of hearing.”
2. Succinctly stated, the assessee firm, which is engaged in the business of building and development of residential flats, had filed its return of income for AY 2019-20 declaring an income of Rs.1,000/-.
3. Search and seizure operations were conducted in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah, which in turn was an offshoot of a search conducted under section 153A of the Act on “Yashoda Group” on 22/12/2020.
4. During the course of the search proceedings conducted on Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), the search officials had seized a loose sheet, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, the contents of which apparently pertained to the assessee firm. Thereafter, the AO of the searched person, being satisfied that the information contained in the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 pertained to M/s. Rutuja Projects, i.e., the assessee firm, and the same had a bearing on the determination of the latter’s income for AY 2018-19 to AY 2021-22, forwarded the seized material to the AO of the “other person”, i.e., the assessee firm, who after recording a satisfaction note under section 153C of the Act, dated 29/06/2022 initiated proceedings and issued a notice to the assessee firm.
5. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, inter alia, referred to the investment made by the assessee firm towards the purchase of a Plot No.6, Survey No 313 & 316, Block No. 1, Kanteshwar, Nizamabad admeasuring 244.16 sq yds (out of total area of 698.66 sq yds) jointly with M/s. Shiva Balaji Associates. The AO observed that based on the contents of the aforesaid seized document, the total consideration worked out to Rs.1,26,96,320/-, out of which the assessee’s share of 67% worked out to Rs.85,06,534/-, which included a cash payment of Rs.71,22,984/-.
6. The AO further observed that the assessee firm, along with M/s Shiva Balaji Associates (supra), had during the subject year purchased two immovable properties, wherein his share of purchase consideration worked out at Rs.1,05,96,934/-, as under:
The AO, based on the aforesaid facts, called upon the assessee firm to explain as to why the purchase consideration of Rs. 1,05,96,934/-(supra) paid by him for purchasing the aforementioned properties may not be considered as unexplained investments under section 69 of the Act. In reply, the assessee firm submitted that it had jointly purchased the two aforementioned immovable properties with M/S. Shiva Balaji Associates, viz., (i) property purchased from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah; and (ii) property purchased from Shri S Madhukar Reddy and Shri S Prakash Reddy. However, the assessee firm, vide its letter, dated 07/03/2024, assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Act for the reason that the material seized did not belong to or relate to the assessee firm. Apart from that, the assessee firm denied having made any cash payments and only accepted the payments made to the respective sellers through banking channels.
7. The AO, after deliberating on the explanation of the assessee firm, did not find favor with the same. It was observed by him that the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, was seized from the premises of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah, i.e., the person from whom the assessee firm had admittedly purchased the land. The AO observed that it was not the case of the assessee firm that the material was seized from an unknown and unrelated third party. Also, it was observed by him that the 244.16 sq yds (out of the total land admeasuring 698.66 sq yds) purchased by the assessee firm from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), tallied with the area of land as mentioned in the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01. Apart from that, it was observed that Dr. Amidyala Linigaiah (supra) had, as per the registered sale deeds, stated to have sold the entire land of 698.66 sq yds for a consideration of Rs. 47,92,000/-, viz. (i) vide sale deed No. 9948/2018 to Shri Krishna Kanth Amandand; and (ii). vide sale deed No. 9949/2018 to the assessee firm and M/s. Shiva Balaji Associates. It was observed that the aggregate of the sale consideration paid by the above-mentioned parties to the seller through cheques, amounting to Rs. 47,92,000/-, was mentioned in the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01. Accordingly, the AO, based on the contents of the seized document, observed that the assessee firm had purchased the subject property from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) at Rs. 52,000/- per sq yd, amounting to Rs. 85,06,534/-. Apart from that, the AO observed that the assessee had also purchased land admeasuring 60 Sq. yards at Survey No.312 of Kanteshwar Shivar, Mandal Nizamabad District vide sale deed No.3928/2019, dated 08/03/2019 from Shri S Madhukar Reddy and Shri S Prakash Reddy. The AO, based on his conviction that the said land falling in the vicinity of the land purchased by the assessee from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) would also have been purchased at the same rate of Rs. 52,000/-per Sq. yard, determined the assessee’s investment at Rs. 20,90,400/-. The AO, based on his aforesaid deliberations, concluded that the assessee firm had, during the subject year, made a total investment of Rs. 1,05,96,934/- towards the purchase of the aforementioned properties. Thereafter, the AO, vide his order dated 19/03/2024 under Section 153C of the Act, determined the total income of the assessee firm at Rs. 1,05,97,934/-.
8. Aggrieved, the assessee firm carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A).
9. Ostensibly, the CIT(A) observed that the AO, except for relying on the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, had failed to place on record any supporting evidence which would reveal that any on-money was paid by the assessee firm for purchasing the property admeasuring 244.16 sq yds from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra). Also, it was observed that the AO had without placing on record any material evidencing payment of any cash with respect to the other property, i.e., land at Survey No.312 of Kanteshwar Shivar, Mandal Nizamabad District that was purchased by the assessee firm vide sale deed No.3928/2019, dated 08/03/2019 from Shri S Madhukar Reddy and Shri S Prakash Reddy had without any basis summarily adopted the purchase rate per sq yard based on the purchase rate that was adopted by him w.r.t the land purchased by the assessee firm from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) and had most arbitrarily worked out the impugned investment made at Rs.20,90,400/-.
10. Also, the CIT(A) observed that based on the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, the AO while framing the assessment in the case of the seller, viz., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) had made an addition in his case by adopting the sale rate of the property @ Rs.52,000/- per sq yd, which, however was on an appeal in the latter’s case vacated by the CIT(A) on the ground that the seized document was a “dumb document” and no independent material was placed on record by the AO to support his conviction that any on-money was received from the purchasers. Also, it was observed that the AO, while framing the assessment in the case of the seller, i.e., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), had recorded the statement of the purchasers wherein both of them had denied having paid any on-money, i.e., amount over and above the sale consideration recorded in the registered sale deeds for purchasing the subject property. The CIT(A) further observed that the Revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) had carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which vide its order passed in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Lingaiah Amidyala in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023 had approved the CIT(A) order and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue.
11. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations, viz., (i) that the AO while framing the assessment in the case of the assessee firm had failed to place on record any independent material which would support his conviction that any on-money, i.e., amount over and above the sale consideration recorded in the registered sale deed was paid by the assesee firm for purchasing the subject property, i.e., 244.16 sq yds from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra); and (ii) that the addition made based on the contents of the same seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 was vacated by the CIT(A) while disposing the appeal in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), which order had thereafter been approved by the Tribunal vide its order passed in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Lingaiah Amidyala in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023, vacated the addition made by the AO.
12. Also, we find that the CIT(A) taking cognizance of the fact that the AO had failed to place on record any independent material which would support the payment of any on-money for purchase of the second property, viz., land at Survey No.312 of Kanteshwar Shivar, Mandal Nizamabad District, vide sale deed No.3928/2019, dated 08/03/2019 from Shri S Madhukar Reddy and Shri S Prakash Reddy, vacated the impugned addition that was made by the AO.
13. The Revenue, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.
14. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the authorities below and the material available on record, as well as considered the judicial pronouncements that have been pressed into service by them to drive home their respective contentions.
15. Dr. Sachin Kumar, Learned Senior Departmental Representative (for short, “Ld. Sr-DR”) at the threshold of hearing of the appeal submitted that a bare perusal of the seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 seized in the course of the search proceedings conducted in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), revealed beyond any scope of doubt that the contents of the same pertained to the property which the assessee firm had jointly purchased with M/s. Shiva Balaji Associates from the aforesaid searched person. Elaborating on his contention, the Ld. Sr-DR submitted that not only the total area of the subject property, i.e.,698.66 sq yds but also the aggregate of the payments made by the aforementioned purchasers through cheques aggregating to Rs. 47,92,000/- tallied with the area of the plot and the payments made by the said respective purchasers to the aforementioned seller as was recorded in the registered sale deeds No.9949/2018 and 3928/2019. The Ld. Sr-DR to buttress his contention had taken us through the copies of the aforesaid sale deeds, Pages 1-19 of the Department’s Paper Book (DPB), which fortified his aforesaid contention. The Ld. Sr-DR submitted that as the aforesaid material aspect had not been considered by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in the case of the seller, viz., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) vide its order passed in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023, therefore, considering the facts now being placed before the Tribunal in the present case, the earlier order of the Tribunal is distinguishable. The Ld. Sr-DR to support his contention that if the contents of the seized document tally with those mentioned in the registered sale deed, then the same can safely be acted upon, had relied upon the order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench “G” in the case of DCIT vs. Shiram Consultants India (P) Ltd (2023) 147 taxmann.com 457 (Delhi-Trib.). Also, he had pressed into service the order of the Hon’ble High Court of Jharkhand in the case of Mahabir Prasad Rungta vs. Office of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ranchi & Another 2014 SCC ONLINE JHAR 44 214 AIR JHAR R 3 139. The Ld. Sr-DR submitted that as a perusal of the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 proved to the hilt the factum of on-money paid by the assessee firm for purchasing the subject property, therefore, the AO had rightly made the addition by acting upon the same, which, however had wrongly been vacated by the CIT(A).
16. Per contra, Shri C. Maheswar Reddy, CA, Learned Authorized Representative (for short, “Ld. AR”) for the assessee firm vehemently objected to the contentions advanced by the Ld. Sr-DR. It was submitted that the CIT(A) had rightly vacated the addition, inter alia, for the reason that the AO, except for relying upon the unsubstantiated contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, had failed to place on record any independent material which would irrefutably evidence the payment of on-money by the assessee firm for purchasing the subject property. The Ld. AR submitted that the CIT(A) after taking cognizance of the fact that the addition made in the hands of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), i.e., the seller, which in turn was based on the contents of the aforesaid seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 had been vacated by the CIT(A), for the reason that the same was held to be a “dumb document” which could not justify the impugned addition based on a stand alone basis. The Ld. AR to buttress his contention had taken us through the relevant observations of the CIT(A). It was submitted that the order of the CIT(A) vacating the impugned addition had thereafter been upheld by the Tribunal, which had dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue in the case of the seller, viz., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah, in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023. Elaborating further on his contention, the Ld. AR submitted that as the Department has failed to place on record any material which would distinguish the facts involved in the case of the assessee firm as against that of the seller, i.e., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah, to the extent reliance was placed on the contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, there could be no justification for taking a different view as against that arrived at by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in the case of the seller, viz., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023. The Ld. AR submitted that as the CIT(A) had, based on the facts involved in the present appeal, taken a well-reasoned view and vacated the impugned addition, therefore, the appeal filed by the Revenue being devoid and bereft of any substance is liable to be dismissed.
17. We have thoughtfully considered the contentions advanced by the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties in the backdrop of the material available on record.
18. Admittedly, it is a matter of fact borne from the record that the AO except for relying upon the contents of the seized document, i.e., a loose sheet, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, has failed to place on record any independent material which would corroborate his view that the assessee firm had paid on-money for purchasing the subject property from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra). Apart from that, we find that based on the contents of the seized documents, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, the AO while framing the assessment in the case of the seller, viz., Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) had made an addition in his case based on his view that he had sold the subject property @ Rs.52,000/- per sq yd and not at the value disclosed by him in the registered sale deed. As observed herein above, the aforesaid addition made by the AO in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) has been vacated by the CIT(A), which order had thereafter been upheld by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023. We concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) in the present case before us that the AO, except for relying upon the unsubstantiated contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, has failed to place on record any documentary evidence which would irrefutably substantiate his view that the assessee firm had paid on-money for purchasing the subject property. At this stage, we are reminded of the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana in the case of Paramjit Singh vs. ITO [2010] 195 Taxman 273 (Punjab & Haryana), wherein it has been held that the contents of a registered sale deed cannot be dislodged on the basis of oral or hearsay evidence. The Hon’ble High Court, while concluding as herein above, had drawn support from Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. For the sake of clarity, we deem it apposite to cull out the observation of the Hon’ble High Court, as under:
“The assessee has approached this Court by invoking the provisions of Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) challenging order dated 17.12.2008 (A.6) passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Amritsar (for brevity ‘The Tribunal’) in ITA No. 373 ASR -2007 in respect of assessment year 2003-04. The Tribunal while accepting the appeal of the Revenue has expressed the view that ostensible sale consideration of the land disclosed in the registered sale deed dated 24.9.2002 deserves to be added to the income of the assessee- appellant. The Tribunal has dis-regarded the statement made on affidavit by the vendor S/Shri Tirath Singh and Surmukh Singh, who are the real uncles of the assesse- appellant. They have stated in the affidavits that infact no sale consideration had passed hands and they had relinquished their share in the landed property. The object of executing sale deed was only to handover landed property to the assessee-appellant as they are well settled in United Kingdom since 1960’s and 1970’s. After the case was remanded back to the CIT(A), a report was obtained by the CIT(A) in respect of the aforesaid affidavits filed by the vendor. The Assessing Officer asked Tirath Singh son of Pakhar Singh certain questions
xxx xx xxx
Mr. Ravish Sood, learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently submitted that the arrangement made between the father of the assessee-appellant and both his uncles should have been given due credence as was rightly done by the CIT(A) and once his uncles have stated on oath that no consideration has passed to them then it should not be imagined that the amount has passed hands which is hidden income of the assessee- appellant and therefore liable to be added. The learned counsel has pointed out that in the account of the assessee- appellant the amount remained deposited is not more than few thousands at any time and such a huge amount of over 24 Lacs could not have been paid by him.
We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that they do not warrant acceptance. There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity ‘the 1872 Act’) incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to Section 92 of the 1872 Act once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of Section 91 then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtracting from its terms. According to illustration ‘b’ to Section 92 if there is absolute agreement in writing between the parties where one has to pay the other a principal sum by specified date then the oral agreement that the money was not to be paid till the specified date cannot be proved. Therefore, it follows that no oral agreement contradicting/ varying the terms of a document could be offered. Once the aforesaid principal is clear then ostensible sale consideration disclosed in the sale deed dated 24.9.2002 (A.7) has to be accepted and it cannot be contradicted by adducing any oral evidence. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal does not suffer from any legal infirmity in reaching to the conclusion that the amount shown in the registered sale deed was received by the vendors and deserves to be added to the gross income of the assessee-appellant.
For the reasons afore mentioned this appeal fails and the same is dismissed.”
19. We thus, are of firm conviction that now when it has been the claim of the assessee firm that it had not paid any on-money, i.e., amount in excess of that disclosed in the registered sale deed for which it had purchased the subject property from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), the AO was by no means justified to dislodge the said claim without placing on record any irrefutable secondary evidence which would disprove to the hilt the veracity of the said claim. Also, we find that our view that adverse inferences cannot be drawn on a standalone basis by relying upon the contents of a dumb document seized in the course of the search proceedings is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) vs. Tarun Kumar Goyal in ITA No. 243 of 2022, dated 24thAugust, 2022. In the said case, the Hon’ble High Court, finding no element of perversity in the view taken by the Tribunal, which had held that the impugned addition of on-money payment made in the assessees’ hands on the basis of a mere dumb document, which is not corroborated by any other evidence, was not sustainable, dismissed the revenue’s appeal.
20. Be that as it may, we also cannot remain oblivion of the fact that now when the seized document, viz., Page-24of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, has been held by the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal in the case of seller, viz., ACIT vs. Sri Lingaiah Amidyala, ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023 as a “dumb document”, the said impugned seized document cannot be acted upon for arriving at a view to the contrary qua the consideration paid by the assessee firm, i.e., the purchaser for the same sale transaction, specifically when no independent corroborative material to the contrary has been placed on record by the Revenue.
21. We thus, in terms of our aforesaid deliberations, finding no infirmity in the view taken by the CIT(A), who had rightly based on his observations vacated the addition made in the hands of the assessee firm, uphold his order.
22. Resultantly, the appeal filed by the Revenue, being devoid and bereft of any substance, is dismissed.
C.O. No. 03/Hyd/2026
(By assessee)
23. We shall now take up the cross-objection filed by the assessee firm. While dealing with the Revenue’s appeal in ITA No.1689/Hyd/2025, AY 2019-20, in the foregoing paragraphs of this order, we have upheld the view taken by the CIT(A) and dismissed the appeal of the Revenue. Accordingly, in terms of our aforesaid observations, the present cross- objection filed by the assessee firm supporting the view taken by the CIT(A) is allowed.
24. In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed, and the Cross-Objection filed by the assessee firm is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in the open court on 10th June, 2026.
Author Bio
