SURYADEVARA RADHAKRISHNA,HYDERABAD V. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD

ITA 583/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around the income tax assessment of Suryadevara Radakrishna, who was subjected to a search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The search revealed documents and cash that led the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax to make additions to Radakrishna's income for the assessment year 2020-21. The primary contention was the alleged underreporting of the property purchase value and unexplained cash found during the search. The Tribunal examined the evidence, including sale agreements and statements from Radakrishna and other parties, and found insufficient evidence to support the claim of on-money payment for the property purchase but upheld the addition for the unexplained cash.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 786099 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-10-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-A
• Assessment Year: 2020-2021
• Appeal Filed On: 02-04-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Corroborative evidences; Fair market value; Retraction; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 153A

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘ए’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ A ‘ 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 आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.583/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2020-21) Suryadevara Radakrishna, R/o.Hyderabad. PAN : AMUPS8442G Vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Ms. U. Mini Chandran, CIT-DR सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 23.09.2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 31.10.2025 O R D E R PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 11, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna Hyderabad, dated 18.03.2025 relating to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to the law, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.9,00,00,000/- as on money for purchase of property. 3. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have seen that the document on which the A.O had relied upon did not go through and only one property was purchased, and hence the addition of Rs.9,00,00,000/- was not warranted. 4. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have seen that the agreement as mentioned in Ground No.2 above, was not fully signed and as such has no evidentiary value. 5. The Appellate Commissioner has relied on documents and papers which were not signed by the Appellant, and basing the order on such documents and papers ought to be struck down. 6. The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have confirmed the addition of an amount of Rs.20,85,000/- as income u/s.68/69. 7. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have quashed the Addition made by the A.O at ground No.6 above, as the assessment order is not clear under which section the addition has been made, as the A.O has mentioned both Section 68/Section 69, and he himself was not clear as to the addition to be made. 8. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.” 3. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of production of motion pictures. The assessee filed his original return of income for the assessment year 2020-21 on 31-03-2021, admitting total income Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna of Rs.13,89,37,130/-. A search and seizure operation under Section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was conducted on 20.11.2019. During the course of such proceedings, it was observed that, the assessee has purchased a property located at address 8-2-268/K/27, on Plot No.36A, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, where he was residing as a tenant and running the office of M/s. Harika and Hassine Creations, for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores, as per Sale Deed No. 41821 of 2019, dated 27-06-2019. Further, during the course of search proceedings in the premises of M/s. Harika and Hassine Creations, loose sheets were found numbering 69, which is having the details of acknowledgment of receipt of Rs. 25 lakhs and Rs. 4.60 crores, vide Cheque No. 530064 drawn on Yes Bank Limited, Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad. A draft sale deed in which, the assessee had entered into an agreement to purchase property from Smt. S. Sarala for a sale consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores was found and as per the said agreement, the assessee had entered into a sale agreement with Smt. S. Sarala for purchase of property at 8-2-268/K/27, on Plot No.36A, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for a consideration Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna of Rs.13.60 crores, whereas the same property has been registered for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores. During the course of search, a statement under Section 132(4) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was recorded from the assessee, and confronted with the documents found during the course of search, including two pages of the sale agreement for purchase of property, and was called upon to explain the relevant documents with reference to the sale deed for purchase of the said property. In response, the assessee stated that, he had entered into an agreement with Smt. S. Sarala for purchase of two properties, which were mortgaged to Bank, however, at a later date, he had purchased one property for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores, vide sale deed dated 27-06-2019. The documents found during the course of search has been confronted to Shri P.D.V. Prasad, Manager of M/s. Harika and Hassine Creations, wherein, in response to a specific question, he has stated that assessee had entered into an agreement with Smt. S. Sarala for purchase of two properties, which were mortgaged to bank, however, the property at 8-2-268/K/27, on Plot No.36A, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad was purchased only for Rs. 4.60 crores. A statement under Section Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna 131 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was recorded from Smt. Sarala on 18-02-2020 and confronted with the documents found during the course of search, including two pages of the purported sale agreements and sale receipts. In response to a specific question, she stated that she had sold the property for a consideration of Rs.4.60 crores, out of which, a sum of Rs. 25 lakhs was received through cheque and the balance amount of Rs. 4.35 crores was paid at the time of registration. She further denied receipt of any consideration in excess of Rs. 4.60 crores. 4. Consequent to search, notice under Section 153A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 11-12-2021, was issued and duly served upon the assessee. In response, the assessee had filed a return of income for the A.Y. 2020-21 on 31.03.2021, admitting total income of Rs. 13,89,37,130/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to explain as to why addition shall not be made towards on-money payment for purchase of property. In response, the assessee submitted that, the property at 8-2-268/K/27, on Plot No.36A, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, was purchased for a consideration of Rs.4.60 crores, and out of Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna which, Rs.25 lakhs had been paid by way of cheque along with the agreement to sell, and the balance amount of Rs. 4.35 crores had been paid at the time of registration. The assessee further denied having paid cash consideration in excess of the consideration referred to in the registered sale deed, dated 27-06-2019. The assessee has also explained the contents of two pages of the sale agreement and submitted that, although the agreement of sale was entered into for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores, but the said consideration was for purchase of two properties which were mortgaged to the bank. Since the assessee could not arrange funds for purchase of both the properties, finally purchased only one property for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores. 5. The A.O., after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the relevant evidences found during the course of search, including two pages of the purported sale agreement, observed that, the evidences found during the course of search clearly show that, the agreed consideration for purchase of the property was Rs.13.60 crores, whereas the property was finally registered for a consideration of Rs.4.60 crores. The A.O. further observed that, the two pages of the sale Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna agreement clearly show the agreed consideration of Rs.13.60 crores, which is further strengthened by the fact that, the cheque issued for Rs. 25 lakhs at the time of the sale agreement also finds place in the sale deed dated 27-06-2019. The arguments of the assessee that, the agreed consideration of Rs.13.60 crores for purchase of two properties is only an afterthought and not based on any evidences. Therefore, the A.O. observed that, the assessee has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores, whereas registered the property for Rs. 4.60 crores. Therefore, observed that, the difference between the agreed consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores and the registered value of Rs. 4.60 crores, being Rs. 9 crores, has been paid by cash and the same has not been explained by the assessee. Therefore, rejected the arguments of the assessee and made addition of Rs.9 crores towards on-money paid for purchase of the property under 69 of the Act, as unexplained money and brought to tax under Section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 6. Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated the submissions made before Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna the A.O. and argued that, the A.O. erred in making the addition of Rs. 9 crores under Section 69 of the Act, even though, the document found during the course of search did not show any payment of on-money of Rs. 9 crores in cash. The assessee further submitted that, he has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores, and the same has been registered vide sale deed dated 27-06-2019. The A.O., without any further evidences, suggesting payment of on-money, simply made the addition on the basis of two pages of the agreement of sale, even though, the said evidence does not show any details of the property purchased by the assessee or consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores paid, including cash payment of Rs. 9 crores, as claimed by the A.O.. 7. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee and also taking note of the documents found during the course of search, being two pages of the alleged sale agreement, observed that, going by the evidence available on record, including the agreement of sale and the sale deed dated 27-06-2019, it is very clear that, the assessee has agreed to purchase the property for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores and has paid an advance of Rs. 25 lakhs by way of cheque. Further, Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna the said property has been registered for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores, and the balance amount of Rs. 9 crores has been paid in cash. This fact has been further strengthened by the draft sale deed, which also shows the agreed consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores, which is further strengthened the case of the A.O., that, as per the sale agreement dated 11-02-2019, the property has been purchased for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores. Further, the cheque issued on 11-02-2019, vide cheque No. 530064, drawn on Yes Bank, Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad, for Rs. 25 lakhs, was also found place in the sale deed dated 27-06-2019. The assessee, during the course of search, in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, has admitted that, he has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores and paid on-money of Rs. 9 crores in cash. Although, statement given during the course of search has been retracted subsequently by filing a retraction statement, but the said retraction was only an afterthought without any supporting evidence. Since the evidences found during the course of search clearly shows payment of on- money of Rs. 9 crores, the A.O. has rightly made the addition of Rs. 9 crores under Section 69 of the Act. Therefore, the Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna CIT(A) rejected the arguments of the assessee and sustained the addition made by the A.O. towards on-money payment for purchase of property of Rs. 9 crores under Section 69 of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now, in appeal before the Tribunal. 9. The learned counsel for the assessee Shri A. Srinivas, C.A. submitted that, the learned A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) are erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 9 crores under Section 69 of the Act towards alleged payment of on-money for purchase of property, even though, the documents found during the course of search, being two pages of the sale agreement, do not show any details of the property purchased by the assessee or any consideration paid in cash. The learned counsel for the assessee further referring to the unsigned sale deed entered into in the month of June 2019, submitted that, although the A.O. referred to the said unsigned sale deed to support his case, but the fact remains that, the said sale deed is only a draft document without any signatures of the parties. Therefore, the same cannot be considered as evidence for the purpose of making an addition Printed from counselvise.com 11 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna under Section 69 of the Act. The learned counsel for the assessee, further, referring to the statement recorded from Shri P.D.V. Prasad, Manager of the assessee, submitted that, even during the course of search, he has clearly explained the documents found during the course of search and stated that, the property purchased by the assessee was for Rs. 4.60 crores, whereas the sale agreement was entered into for purchase of two properties mortgaged to the bank. This fact was further strengthened by the NOC issued by the bank for sale of the property, where the bank had issued the NOC for selling the property after discharge of the debt by the seller. Further, the seller, Smt. S. Sarala had denied receipt of any cash for sale of the property. There was no evidence with the A.O. for payment of on-money of Rs. 9 crores in cash. The A.O., without there being any corroborative evidence to suggest payment of on-money of Rs. 9 crores in cash, simply made the additions on the basis of two pages of the agreement, even though, the said agreement was for purchase of two properties for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores and finally, the assessee had purchased only one property for a consideration of Rs.4.60 crores as per the registered sale deed dated 27-06-2019. The Ld. Printed from counselvise.com 12 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna CIT(A), without considering the relevant facts, simply sustained the additions made by the A.O. Therefore, the learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be deleted. 10. The Ld. CIT-DR Ms. U. Mini Chandran, for the Revenue, on the other hand, supporting the order of Ld. CIT(A) submitted that, the documents found during the course of search being two pages of sale agreement between the parties clearly shows the agreed consideration for purchase of property for Rs.13.60 crores. Further, the draft Sale Deed entered into in the month of June, 2019 also stated that, the agreed consideration of Rs.13.60 crores. The cheque issued on 11.02.2019 along with agreement of sale for Rs.25 lacs also strengthened the case of the A.O. that, the assessee has purchased the property for consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores because, the cheque referred to in the sale agreement also finds place in the sale deed dated 27-06-2019. This fact has been further strengthened by the statement recorded from the assessee during the course of search, where the assessee has agreed payment of Rs. 9 crores in cash for purchase of property. Although the assessee has filed a retraction statement, but the Printed from counselvise.com 13 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna said retraction statement is a self-serving document without any evidences. The A.O., after considering the relevant evidences, has rightly made addition of Rs. 9 crores towards on-money for purchase of property under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained money. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering relevant facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, she submitted that the addition made by the A.O. and sustained by the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 11. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record, and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that, as per the sale deed dated 27-06-2019, the assessee has purchased the property at 8-2-268/K/27, on Plot No.36A, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores and as per the market value of the property determined by the Stamp Duty Authority, the value of the property was at Rs. 4.60 crores. The A.O. made an addition of Rs. 9 crores under Section 69 of the Act, towards purported on-money paid for purchase of property on the basis of two pages of sale agreement between the assessee and Smt. S. Sarala, which show the sale price of the Printed from counselvise.com 14 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna property at Rs. 13.60 crores and advance payment of Rs. 25 lakhs by cheque No. 530064 drawn on Yes Bank, Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad. According to the A.O., the assessee had purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores, whereas the sale deed was executed for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores and the difference amount of Rs. 9 crores has been paid in cash. The A.O. has discussed the issue at length in light of two pages of the alleged sale agreement between the parties, the draft sale deed entered in the month of June 2019, the final sale deed dated 27- 06-2019, and three cash receipts for Rs. 5 crores, dated 22-11- 2019 found during the course of search, and came to the conclusion that, the assessee has paid Rs. 9 crores in cash and the source for the said on-money has not been explained. Therefore, the A.O. made an addition under Section 69 of the Act. It was the argument of the assessee before the A.O. that the two pages of sale agreement found during the course of search, although refer to sale price of Rs. 13.60 crores, but said sale price was for purchase of two properties mortgaged to State Bank of India by the seller and not for the property purchased by the assessee alone. The assessee further contended that, although he Printed from counselvise.com 15 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna has agreed to purchase two properties from the seller, finally he had purchased only one property for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores and no cash has been paid for the purchase of the property. Therefore, it is necessary for us to decide the issue in light of the above facts to ascertain whether the addition made by the A.O. under Section 69 of the Act, is based on any evidence of payment of on-money for the purchase of the property. 12. Admittedly, during the course of search, two pages of agreement of sale were found which indicate sale price of Rs. 13.60 crores for purchase of property from the seller. The A.O. took support from the above two pages of sale agreement and came to the conclusion that, the assessee has paid purchase consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores and the difference between sale deed value of Rs. 4.60 crores and agreed sale consideration being Rs. 9 crores has been paid in cash. We have gone through the relevant page numbers 69 and 70 of the sale agreement between the parties, which are available in paper book page numbers 46 and 47 of the assessee, and upon careful verification of the said documents found during the course of search, we find that, although the pages refer to sale price of Rs. 13.60 crores and Printed from counselvise.com 16 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna advance payment of Rs. 25 lakhs by cheque to Yes Bank, Madhapur Branch, Hyderabad, but there is no reference to any property or consideration paid in cash. Further, the A.O. took support from the unsigned sale deed entered into in the month of June 2019, referring to selling price of Rs. 13.60 crores, and argued that, the assessee has purchased the property for a consideration of Rs. 13.60 crores and the difference amount of Rs. 9 crores has been paid in cash. We have once again gone through the unsigned sale deed, and we find that, there is no reference of any payment of on-money in cash for purchase of the property. Further, although the A.O. refers to three cash receipts for Rs. 5 crores dated 22-11-2019, but the said cash receipts are unsigned. Neither the assessee has signed the cash receipts nor the seller has signed the receipts. Therefore, from the above documents, it cannot be said that, the assessee has paid cash of Rs. 9 crores for purchase of the property. Since the documents found during the course of search being two pages of purported sale agreement between the parties do not show any details of the property to be purchased and further, the unsigned sale deed entered in the month of June 2019 also does not refer to any cash payment, in Printed from counselvise.com 17 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna our considered view, the reasons given by the A.O. to make addition of Rs. 9 crores towards on-money payment for purchase of property cannot be sustained because, there is no corroborative evidence with the A.O. to justify his reasoning for making the addition. 13. Having said so, let us come back to the explanation given by the assessee during the course of search and during the course of assessment proceedings. It is an admitted fact that during the course of search, in the statement recorded under Section 132(4) of the Act, the assessee had admitted to have paid on-money for purchase of the property. However, the said statement has been withdrawn by filing a retraction statement, and claimed that, the agreed sale consideration referred to in the two pages of the sale agreement found during the course of search was for two properties, and that finally, the assessee had purchased only one property. The statement given by the assessee and the subsequent retraction statement were further supported by the statement of Shri P.D.V. Prasad, Manager of the assessee firm, M/s. Harika and Hassine Creations, where during the course of search itself, he has explained the two pages of documents found in the Printed from counselvise.com 18 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna premises of the assessee and claimed that, the above agreed sale consideration of Rs.13.60 crores was for purchase of two properties, whereas the assessee finally purchased only one property for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores. This fact has been further strengthened by the statement recorded from the seller, Smt. S. Sarala on 18-02-2020, wherein she clearly admitted to have sold the property for a consideration of Rs. 4.60 crores and not for Rs. 13.60 crores, as claimed by the A.O. Smt. S. Sarala had also denied receipt of any cash for sale of the property. From the evidences found during the course of search coupled with the statements recorded from the assessee, Shri P.D.V. Prasad, and Smt. S. Sarala, one undisputed fact emerges is that, there is no clear evidences with the A.O. to make addition of Rs. 9 crores towards alleged on-money payment for purchase of the property. In our considered view, the A.O. made additions only on the basis of two pages of the sale agreement, even though, said two pages do not show any payment of on-money of Rs. 9 crores in cash. Therefore, in our considered view, the additions made by the A.O., without there being any corroborative evidence to suggest that, the assessee has paid on-money of Rs.9 crores in cash, cannot be Printed from counselvise.com 19 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna sustained. Further, the assessee has also justified his explanation regarding the two properties by filing relevant documents, including the NOC issued by the bank for sale of the property, wherein there are clear details of two properties mortgaged by the seller to the bank for the loans availed in the name of the company and also release of the properties purchased by the assessee after clearance of debt of Rs.9 crores. Insofar as the arguments of the Ld. CIT-DR that, when the value determined by the bank for the property purchased by the assessee was at Rs. 9.35 crores, the claim of the assessee that, the property has been purchased for Rs. 4.60 crores, is totally contrary to the facts and evidences available on record, is also devoid of merit going by the details available on record, because, the bank has nowhere stated that, the value of the property purchased by the assessee was at Rs. 9.35 crores. Further, it has only stated that, they had released the property upon receipt of Rs. 9.35 crores towards discharge of the loan amount given against the property mortgaged to the bank. Since there is no evidence for value of the property as claimed by the Ld. CIT-DR for Rs.9.35 crores, and as per the registered sale deed, the value of the property was only at Printed from counselvise.com 20 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna Rs.4.60 crores and there is no difference in the fair market value of the property as on the date of sale, in our considered view, the addition made by the A.O. towards on-money payment of Rs. 9 crores, without any evidences, cannot be sustained. The Ld. CIT(A), without appreciating the relevant evidences, simply sustained the additions made by the A.O. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) on this issue and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 9 crores made towards alleged on-money payment for purchase of property under Section 69 of the Act, as unexplained money. 14. The next issue that came up for our consideration from Ground Nos. 6 and 7 of the assessee’s appeal is the addition of Rs. 20,85,000/- towards cash found during the course of search. During the course of search proceedings, cash of Rs. 2,02,650/- was found at the residence of the assessee at Flat No. 104, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad. Similarly, an amount of Rs. 18,85,000/- cash was found at the office of the assessee at Road No. 2, Navodaya Colony, Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. During the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. called upon the assessee to explain the source of the cash found during the course Printed from counselvise.com 21 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna of search. In response, the assessee submitted that, he had admitted additional income of Rs. 1.92 crores for A.Y. 2019-20 and the source for cash found during the course of search was out of the remaining amount of income declared for the A.Y. 2019-20. The A.O., after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, rejected the explanation of the assessee with regard to sources for cash found during the course of search and made an addition under Section 69 of the Act, as unexplained money. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) sustained the addition made by the A.O. 15. The learned counsel for the assessee submitted that, the assessee had admitted income of Rs. 1.92 crores for A.Y. 2019-20, out of which, a sum of Rs. 1,56,18,600/- was appropriated for purchase of properties for A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21. The remaining amount of Rs. 35,81,400/- was available with the assessee and the same was kept at his residence and office. Although these facts has been explained before the A.O., but the A.O. has made the addition towards cash found during the course of search as unexplained money. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. should be deleted. Printed from counselvise.com 22 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna 16. The Learned CIT–DR, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the explanation offered by the assessee towards the source of cash found is not substantiated with any supporting evidence. Therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) has rightly denied the benefit of telescoping towards income offered for earlier assessment years. Therefore, she submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. towards cash found during the course of search should be upheld. 17. We have heard both parties, perused the material available on record, and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. There is no dispute with regard to the amount of cash found during the course of search in the residence and office premises of the assessee at Jubilee Hills, Hyderabad. In fact, the Department has found cash of Rs. 20,85,000/- from the residence and office of the assessee. The assessee explained the source out of income declared for A.Y. 2019-20, where the assessee had admitted additional income of Rs. 1.92 crores in cash and claimed that, out of the said income, a sum of Rs. 1,56,18,600/- was appropriated towards purchase of properties for A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-2. The remaining amount of Rs. 35,87,400/- Printed from counselvise.com 23 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna was available with the assessee and the same has been kept at his residence and office. The Ld. CIT(A) has recorded a categorical finding in para no. 6.5.1 of his order that, out of the income declared at Rs. 1.92 crores for A.Y. 2019-2021, the assessee was having cash to the extent of Rs.1.25 crores only and after adjustment of payment of Rs. 94 lacs for A.Y. 2019-20 and Rs.29,38,600/- for A.Y. 2020-21, there is no cash balance available with the assessee to explain the cash found during the course of search. We find that, the assessee has furnished details of cash payments for A.Ys. 2018-19, 2019-20, and 2020-21, and upon careful consideration of relevant details, we find that, the assessee could not explain the availability of balance cash of Rs. 35,87,400/- as claimed during the assessment proceedings. Since the assessee could not explain the source for cash found and seized at the time of search amounting to Rs. 20,85,000/-, in our considered view, there is no error in the reasons given by the A.O. to make the addition of Rs. 20,85,000/- under Section 69 of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant facts has rightly sustained the additions made by the A.O. Thus, we are inclined to Printed from counselvise.com 24 ITA No.583/Hyd/2025 Suryadevara Radhakrishna uphold the findings of the Ld. CIT(A) and reject the grounds taken by the assessee. 18. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 31st October, 2025. Sd/- (श्री रवीश सूद) (RAVISH SOOD) न्यायिक सदस्य/JUDICIAL MEMBER Sd/- (मंजूिधथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 31.10.2025. TYNM/sps आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Sri Suryadevara Radhakrishna, 8-2-268/27, Navodaya Colony, Road No.2, Banjara Hills, Hyderabad, Telangana – 500034. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad. 4. नवभधगीयप्रनतनिनर्, आयकर अपीलीय अनर्करण, हैदरधबधद / DR, ITAT, Hyderabad 5. गधर्ाफ़धईल / Guard file आदेशधिुसधर / BY ORDER Sr. Private Secretary ITAT, Hyderabad Printed from counselvise.com "