आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदè य के सम¢ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1277/Hyd/2024 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91)/Assessment Year:2017-18)

ACIT, Vs. Ramesh Babu Segu, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad.

Hyderabad. PAN: AMRPS2069N (Appellant) (Respondent)

C.O. No.03/Hyd/2025 (In आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1277/Hyd/2024)

((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91)/Assessment Year:2017-18)

Ramesh Babu Segu, Vs. ACIT, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(1), PAN: AMRPS2069N Hyderabad.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Shri K A Sai Prasad, CA (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती (cid:622)वारा/Assessee by:

राजè व (cid:622)वारा/Revenue by:: Ms. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of hearing:

11/02/2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Pronouncement:

13/02/2026 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

The captioned appeal is filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 11/10/2024 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18. The assessee has also raised the Cross Objection for the A.Y.2017-

18. Since the issues raised in the Revenue’s appeal and the assessee’s Cross Objection are interwoven, they have heard together and disposed of vide the consolidated order for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No.1277/Hyd/2024:

2. The Revenue has raised the following Grounds of appeal:

“1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the pen drive seized during the course of search u/s 132 of the Act as an 1 independent primary source of evidence u/s 65B of the Indian Evidence act, when the extracts of digital evidence collected from the pen drive was confronted to and accepted by Sri Polisetty Shyam Sunder?

2. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that the contents of seized pen drive were confirmed by the AR of Sri Polisetty Shyam Sunder during the course of scrutiny assessment proceedings u/s 143(3) rws 153C of the Act?

3. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Id. CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact that corroborative evidence in the form of physical copy of receipts issued to the assessee were found and seized which matched with the contents of the seized pen drive regarding payments made by the assessee?

4. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of hearing”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual engaged in the business of real estate services. The assessee filed his return of income for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017–18 on 30.03.2018, declaring total income of Rs.5,55,050/-. Subsequently, a search and seizure operation under section 132 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) was conducted on 28.01.2020 in the case of Polisetty Somasundaram Group. During the course of search, certain unaccounted cash book and receipt vouchers were found and seized from the business premises of Polisetty Somasundaram. On the basis of the said seized material and the statement of the Managing Partner of Polisetty Somasundaram, Shri Polisetty Shyam Sundar, recorded on 08.06.2020, the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) observed that the assessee was allegedly involved in unaccounted cash transactions with Polisetty Somasundaram aggregating to Rs.2,21,18,000/- pertaining to A.Ys. 2014–15 to 2018–19. Accordingly, notice under section 153C of the Act was issued by the Ld. AO to the assessee on 29.08.2022. In response thereto, the assessee filed return of income for A.Y. 2017–18 on 08.03.2023, declaring total income of Rs.6,05,200/- . The Ld. AO thereafter issued notice under section 143(2) of the Act on 10.03.2023. On the basis