M R ESTATES,HYDERABAD V. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(1), HYDERABAD

SA 10/HYD/2026

AI Insights

The case involves M.R. Estates, a Hyderabad-based firm, which filed stay applications against the collection of outstanding tax demands for the assessment years 2021-22 and 2022-23. The demands were based on additions made under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, alleging 'On Money' payments for property purchases, following a survey under Section 133A. The assessee contested the additions, arguing lack of direct evidence and reliance on third-party evidence. The Tribunal considered the legal precedents and the substantial payments already made by the assessee, leading to the decision to grant a stay and expedite the hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 843320 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Stay Application
• Pronouncement Date: 06-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: 2021-2022
• Appeal Filed On: 18-02-2026
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Application of stay
• Section: 148; 69; 133A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री रवीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य SHRI G. MANJUNATHA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER SA.Nos.10 and 11/Hyd/2026 Arising out of ITA.Nos.283 and 284/Hyd/2026 (Assessment Years – 2021-22 and 2022-23) M/s. M.R. Estates, Hyderabad. PAN : ABPFM9388R. Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Sachin Kuamr, Sr.A.R. सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 06.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 06.03.2026 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : By these stay applications, the assessee seeks for stay of collection of outstanding demands of Rs.2,95,77,600/- for A.Y. 2021-22 and Rs.6,36,06,509/- for A.Y. 2022-23, respectively. Printed from counselvise.com 2 S.A.Nos.10 and 11/Hyd/2026 MR Estates, Hyderabad. 2. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Prasad, C.A. referring to stay applications filed by the assessee firm for both the assessment years submitted that, the A.O. has made additions u/s 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 towards alleged ‘On Money’ paid for purchase of the property by the assessee firm on the basis of survey conducted u/s 133A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which in turn was on the basis of search conducted in the case of M/s. Vamsiram Group, even though there is no evidences with the A.O. to allege that, the assessee has paid ‘On Money’ for purchase of the property. Further, the assessee firm has also challenged the notice issued by the A.O. u/s 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in light of Explanation 2(iii) and this issue is fully covered in favour of the assessee by the decisions of Hyderabad Benches in number of cases. Since the assessee firm has a strong case on merits and further, the assessee firm has also paid a sum of Rs.73,94,400/- for A.Y. 2021-22 and Rs.1,59,01,627/- for A.Y. 2022-23, which is more than 20% of the disputed tax demand, the stay may be granted for balance outstanding demand for a period of six months or till disposal of appeal by the Tribunal, whichever is earlier. Printed from counselvise.com 3 S.A.Nos.10 and 11/Hyd/2026 MR Estates, Hyderabad. 3. The Ld. Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, opposed the stay sought by the assessee firm and argued that instead of granting stay, an early hearing may be granted to the assessee, so that the Revenue can argue its case, because the Revenue has a good case on facts and it is ready to argue the matter whenever the appeals are posted for hearing. 4. We have heard both the parties and considered the relevant arguments of the counsel for the assessee in light of stay applications filed by the assessee firm seeking stay for balance outstanding demand for both the assessment years and counter arguments of learned Sr.A.R. for the Revenue. We find that, the assessee firm has challenged the additions made by the A.O. u/s 69 of the Act, towards alleged ‘On Money’ paid for purchase of the property and claimed that, the A.O. has made addition towards ‘On Money’ without there being any evidences and also on the basis of third party evidences, even though there is no clear evidences of payment of ‘On Money’ by the assessee firm. The assessee had also claimed that, it has strong case on legal issue in light of provisions of Explanation 2(iii) to Section 148 of the Act, and this issue is duly covered in favour of the assessee firm by the Printed from counselvise.com 4 S.A.Nos.10 and 11/Hyd/2026 MR Estates, Hyderabad. decision of ITAT, Hyderabad Benches. Further, the assessee firm has also paid 20% of the disputed tax demand for both the assessment years as required u/s 254(2A) of the Act. Since the assessee firm has made out a prima facie case and also satisfied the provisions of Section 254(2A) by depositing 20% of the disputed tax demand. Therefore, in our considered view, it is a fit case for granting stay for balance outstanding demand for both the assessment years. Thus, we stayed the balance outstanding demand of Rs.2,95,77,600/- for A.Y. 2021-22 and Rs.6,36,06,509/- for A.Y. 2022-23. We further prepone the appeals filed by the assessee firm from 15.06.2026 to 21.04.2026 since the stay is granted for balance outstanding demand and hearing should be granted on priority basis. 5. In the result, the stay applications filed by the assessee firm for both the assessment years are allowed in terms of our observations given hereinabove. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 6th March, 2026. Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Printed from counselvise.com 5 S.A.Nos.10 and 11/Hyd/2026 MR Estates, Hyderabad. Hyderabad, dated 06.03.2026. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रतततिति अग्रेतषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. तनर्ााररती/The Assessee : M.R. Estates, Flat No.201, Regency House, 680, Somajiguda, Khairatabad, Hyderabad – 500082. 2. राजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Hyderabad. 4. तवभागीयप्रतततनतर्, आयकर अिीिीय अतर्करण, हैदराबाद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गार्ाफ़ाईि / Guard file आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Digitally signed by TIRUPATI YAMINI NAGA MALLESWARI Date: 2026.03.06 15:26:09 +05'30' "