Itta/575/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy
High Court
17 Jul 2013 In favour of: Assessee
Forum / Bench
High Court · taphc
Parties
Itta/575/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy
Date of order
17 Jul 2013
Assessment year(s)
—
Outcome
Dismissed
Case summary
In Itta/575/2012 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax-Iii v. Smt. Chirala Nivedita Reddy, the High Court (2013) dismissed the appeal. The decision went in favour of the assessee.
Summary auto-generated from the order below — read the full judgment for the complete reasoning.
The order — as passed by the High Court
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH,HYDERABAD
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAAND
THE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No. 575 of 2012
DATE: 17.07.2013
Between:
Commissioner of Income Tax-IIIHyderabad.
… Appellant
And
Smt. Chirla Nivedita Reddy,Hyderabad.
… Respondent
This court made the following:
THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTAANDTHE HON’BLE Ms. JUSTICE G. ROHINI
I.T.T.A. No. 575 of 2012
JUDGMENT:(Per the Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta)
We have heard Sri B. Narasimha Sarma, learned counsel for theappellant and gone through the impugned judgment and order of the learnedTribunal.
It appears that in the block assessment period the assessing authorityadded the undisclosed income without having any basis of search andseizure material. The learned Tribunal therefore found that addition ofRs.3,02,44,000/- is not supported by any seized material. It was again foundthat at best the addition of Rs.17,09,007/-can be made as undisclosedincome on the basis of the material found during the course of searchoperation as investment towards cost of construction, and the balanceamount of Rs.2,85,34,993/- cannot be added as undisclosed income, sincethe same is not supported by any seized material.
In view of the aforesaid findings and the settled principle of law that noundisclosed income can be arrived at without having any basis of search andseizure material, we dismissed the appeal.
______________________
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ
_______________
Date: 17.07.2013
ES
G. ROHINI, J
This page reproduces a public-domain court order (Section 52(1)(q)(iv), Copyright Act 1957). Explanations are EaseValue's original analysis. Always read the original order.
Disclaimer: General information only — not legal, tax or professional advice, and no advocate/CA–client relationship is created. AI-generated summaries may contain errors and must be verified against the original court order. EaseValue accepts no liability for reliance on this content. Not a solicitation.
Full disclaimer & Terms.