SWAPNA RAVIKANTHI,NARSAPUR V. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-2(4), HYDERABAD

ITA 1471/HYD/2025

AI Insights

The case revolves around an appeal by Ms. Swpana Ravikanthi against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - 12, which sustained an addition made by the A.O. under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, for a cash payment of Rs. 6,16,350 made towards the purchase of a property. The property was purchased jointly with another individual, and the assessee claimed that the payment was made from her husband's retirement benefits and accumulated savings, including Sthridhan. The A.O. initially accepted the source of funds for a portion of the payment but added the remaining amount as unexplained investment. The CIT(A) partially relieved the assessee but sustained the addition for the balance amount due to lack of corroborative evidence. The Tribunal, after reviewing the submissions and evidence, concluded that the assessee had sufficiently demonstrated the source of the funds and thus allowed the appeal.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 831408 (ITAT-HYDERABAD)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-01-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB-B
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 16-09-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income-tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Unexplained investment; Documents seized; Gift; Search and seizure
• Section: 132; 153A; 69

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय न्यायाधिकरण में, हैदराबाद ‘बी’ बेंच, हैदराबाद IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad “B” Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, माननीय उपाध्यक्ष एिं श्री मंजूनाथ जी, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.1471/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2019-20) Ms. Swpana Ravikanthi, R/o. Medak. PAN : CEHPR4738H Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented by : Shri Guna Sekhar, C.A. (Appeared through Hybrid Mode) राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. A.R. सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 13.01.2026 घोर्णध की तधरीख/ Date of Pronouncement : 21.01.2026 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) – 12, Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi Hyderabad, dated 17.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee is an individual and a non-filer. A search and seizure operation was conducted under Section 132 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 in the case of M/s. MSR India Limited and Sri M. Srinivasa Reddy, Director of M/s. Mirchi Developers Private Limited on 07.01.2021. During the search assessment proceedings under Section 153A of the Act, in the case of the searched person, on analysis of the seized material vide Annexure A/MSR/OFF/01, page 123, the A.O. of the searched person was satisfied that, the seized material belongs to and the information contained in the said documents seized under Section 132 of the Act, relates to the assessee and has a bearing on the determination of the total income for the year under consideration. Thereafter, the A.O. of the “other person” i.e., the assessee, recorded satisfaction for initiating proceedings under Section 153C of the Income-tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, notice under Section 153C of the Act was issued to the assessee on 20.12.2022. However, the assessee did not file the return of income in response to the notice issued under Section 153C of the Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi Act. The case was selected for scrutiny and during the course of assessment proceedings, the A.O. noticed that, the assessee had purchased a property along with Ms. Gandhart Sureka, plot bearing No.10, admeasuring 319 square yards, for a total consideration of Rs. 74,32,700/-, and the assessee’s share being 50% amounted to Rs. 37,16,350/-. The A.O. called upon the assessee to explain the source for purchase of the property. In response, the assessee stated that, her share of investment for purchase of the property amounting to Rs. 37,16,350/- was paid by her husband out of his retirement benefits received after retirement. The assessee further stated that, she has paid a sum of Rs. 29,00,000/- through cheque on two different dates from her husband’s bank account and a further sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- has been paid from her son’s account and the balance amount of Rs. 6,16,350/- has been paid in cash out of accumulated savings and Sthridhan. 3. The A.O., after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, accepted the source to the extent of Rs. 29,00,000/- paid through cheque. However, in respect of the balance payment of Rs. 8,16,350/-, the A.O. did not accept the explanation of the Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi assessee and made addition under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment and brought the same to tax under Section 115BBE of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 4. Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee reiterated her arguments made before the A.O. and claimed that, the property has been purchased out of family savings, including retirement benefits of her husband, and she being a housewife, does not have any independent source, and therefore, the addition made towards cash payment for purchase of the property should be deleted. The Ld. CIT(A), after considering the relevant submissions of the assessee, allowed partial relief to the assessee, wherein the Ld. CIT(A) allowed relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards payment made by the assessee for purchase of the property out of gift received from her son of Rs. 2,00,000/- on 12.09.2018, and the same has been paid for purchase of the property. Insofar as the balance payment of Rs. 6,16,350/- out of accumulated savings and Sthridhan, the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and sustained Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi the addition on the ground that, the assessee failed to file corroborative evidence to prove past savings and Sthridhan. 6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri Guna Sekhar, C.A. submitted that, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the A.O. towards payment made for purchase of the property of Rs. 6,16,350/-, even though the assessee has explained the source for the said payment out of the family savings including retirement benefits of her husband and also Sthridhan. The learned counsel for the assessee, further referring to the bank statements of Sri Ravi Kanti Anjaneyulu, the husband of the assessee, submitted that, her husband has withdrawn sufficient cash from the bank account to the tune of Rs. 16,78,500/- for the past five years, out of which they have saved a certain amount for purchase of the property and the same has been paid to the developer. In this regard, he has furnished relevant bank account statements and explained that, although the assessee initially submitted that, the amount has been paid Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi out of accumulated savings and Sthridhan, but the said accumulation of cash was out of the income of her husband because the assessee does not have any independent source of income. Although these evidences were furnished before the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A), the A.O. and the Ld. CIT(A) rejected the explanation of the assessee and made addition towards cash payment under Section 69 of the Act as unexplained investment. Therefore, he submitted that, the addition made by the A.O. be deleted. 8. The learned Senior A.R. for the Revenue, Dr. Sachin Kumar, on the other hand, supporting the order of the Ld. CIT(A), submitted that, the arguments of the assessee that, the cash payment has been made out of past accumulated savings and Sthridhan has not been substantiated with relevant evidences. The assessee has initially stated that, the payment has been made out of Sthridhan; however, subsequently changed her version and stated that, the payment was out of her husband’s savings. Since there is a contradiction in the arguments at different levels, the A.O. has rightly made addition towards the cash payment because the assessee could not explain the source. The Ld. CIT(A), after Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi considering the facts, has rightly sustained the addition made by the A.O. Therefore, he submitted that, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) should be upheld. 9. We have heard both sides, perused the material available on record and had gone through the orders of the authorities below. Admittedly, the assessee was a housewife and does not have any independent source of income. The assessee had purchased a property along with another co-owner and explained the source for purchase of the property out of her husband’s retirement benefits and past savings, including Sthridhan. The A.O. accepted the explanation with regard to the payment made by cheque for Rs. 29,00,000/- and the balance amount of Rs. 8,16,350/- has been added as unexplained investment. The Ld. CIT(A) allowed further relief of Rs. 2,00,000/- towards gift received from her son through bank account and sustained the balance addition of Rs. 6,16,350/- on the ground that, the explanation was not substantiated with relevant evidences. We find that, although the assessee initially argued that, the payment has been made out of accumulated savings and Sthridhan, but subsequently filed relevant evidences including her husband’s bank account Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi statements and argued that, the above payment has been made out of cash withdrawals from her husband’s bank account on different dates which is available to the tune of Rs. 16,78,500/-. Since the assessee is a housewife and does not have any independent source, in our considered view, the explanation offered by the assessee with regard to the source for payment of cash for purchase of the property of Rs. 6,16,350/- out of her husband’s income including the retirement benefits should be accepted. Further, the assessee has also furnished relevant bank account statements of her husband and proved that, there are sufficient cash withdrawals for each year and out of which they have accumulated part of the cash withdrawals for the purpose of purchase of the property. Since the A.O. has not disbelieved the explanation of the assessee and has only stated that, the assessee has not furnished evidence, in our considered view, once the evidences are available which clearly shows the availability of cash for making purchase of the property, the A.O. ought not to have made addition towards the cash payment made for purchase of the property of Rs. 6,16,350/- under Section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Ld. CIT(A) without considering the relevant Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi evidences simply sustained the additions made by the A.O. Thus, we set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct the A.O. to delete the addition of Rs. 6,16,350/- under Section 69 of the Act towards the payment made for purchase of the property. 10. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 21st January, 2026. Sd/- श्री विजय पाल राि (VIJAY PAL RAO) उपाध्यक्ष /VICE PRESIDENT Sd/- (मंजूनाथ जी) (MANJUNATHA G.) लेखा सदस्य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 21.01.2026. TYNM/sps Printed from counselvise.com 10 ITA No.1471/Hyd/2025 Swarna Ravikanthi आदेशकी प्रनतनलनप अग्रेनर्त/ Copy of the order forwarded to:- 1. निर्धाररती/The Assessee : Swapna Ravikanthi, H.No.18-11, Library Road, Narasapur, Medak, Telangana. Pin – 502313. 2. रधजस्व/ The Revenue : The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle – 2(4), Hyderabad. 3. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (Central), 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 "