, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad , श्री विजय पाल राि उपाध् यक्ष एिं , श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया लेखा सदस्य के समक्ष ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.125/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year:2017-18)

Shri Jayachandraraju Gangaraju, Income Tax Officer, Nellore. Vs. Ward-2, Nellore.

PAN: AQDPG6374N (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: Shri VVSC Muralidhar Rao, Advocate रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 21/07/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 25/07/2025 /ORDER आदेश PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M. :

This appeal is filed by Shri Jayachandraraju Gangaraju (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld.

CIT(A)”), dated 22.11.2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

“ 1. The order of the learned Assessing Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) were contrary to the facts and law and deserves to be dismissed.

2. The Assessing Officer has done the Assessment u/s. 143 (3) of the Income Tax Act by following the search as contemplated u/s. 153-A of the Income Tax Act. But there are no ingredients of search in this case i.e. Search was not directly conducted by the Assessing Officer. This case was handed over by the Police to the I.T. Department. Therefore, search proceedings under sections 153-A of the I.T. Act are not applicable in this case.

At this instance, the Appellant very much relying on the mot following citations, which reveals the essential ingredients of search u/s. 153-A of the I.T. Act 1961.

(a) Jindal Stainless Ltd. Vs. ACIT, ITA NOs. 3480 & 3481 (Del) 2006, 122 TTJ 902.

(b) Rajat Trade.com India Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, 120 ITD 301 Appeal No.

IT (SS) A.NO. 182 & 183 / TNI/2007 Indore, ITAT.

(c) Regency Mahavir Properties Vs. ACIT Cen. Cir.l, Thane (2018) 89 Taxmann.com 444 (Mumbai Tribunal).

3. The learned Assessing Officer wrongly assessed a sum of Rs.62,99,500/- as unexplained money of the assessee u/s. 69-A of the Act ignoring the fact that, the assessee has only borrowed this amount from Bandi Penchala Narasa Reddy, to purchase Agricultural Land and to run an orphanage on it.

4. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the well instant statement of the assessee before the Police even at the time of seizure, first the Police Department which was consistently maintained before the Jon Assistant (ADIT) Director and Assessing Officer.

5. The Assessing Officer failed to appreciate the fact that the above said money has flowed from B. Penchala Narasa Reddy to the assessee out raise of the monies withdrawn by the said B. Penchala Narasa Reddy from his Bank Account. The Assessing Officer did not considered the evidences produced by the assessed is not justified.

6. The Assessing Officer did not accepted the documentary evidence of promissory note executed by the appellant in favour of B. Penchala Narasa Reddy and the said B. Penchala Narasa Reddy wrote a letter to Assessing Officer and confirmed that he had lent money of Rs.60,00,000/- to the Appellant and the mode of disbursement of money. But the Assessing Officer did not consider these evidences is not nevip justified.

7. The Appellant further submit that even before the CIT (Appeals) NFAC, he furnished all the documents relating to loan from B. Penchala noits Narasa Reddy and also stated that the said B. Penchala Narasa Reddy had disclosed the above said loan in his I.T. Returns filed during the Assessment Year 2017-18. The Appellant also uploaded the ledger copies showing the repayment of the above said loan by the Appellant to the said B. Penchala Narasa Reddy. But it was also not considered by the CIT (A) is also gross injustice to the Appellant.

8. The learned Assessing Officer has failed to appreciate that the source of funds for the B. Penchala Nar