TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (6) TMI 980
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d. CIT (Appeals) erred in deleting the addition made on account of unexplained investment u/s 69 of the IT Act of Rs. 2,36,34,000/- following the order of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional ITAT in the case of the Mr. Lijngaiah Amidyala for AY 2019-20 in ITA No. 702/Hyd/2022, dated 26.04.2023 which has not been accepted by the department. 3. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add any other grounds which may be necessary." The assessee, on the other hand, has supported the CIT() order by raising the following cross-objections: "1. The Order of the Ld.CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad has justified in allowing the appeal of the Assessee on merits. 2. The Ld. AO erred on the fact that the Ld. CIT (A) has rightly deleted the additions and allowed the Appeal of the Appellant after fairly considering the facts and submissions made before the Ld. CIT (A). 3. The Ld. AO has failed in appreciating the fact that the Ld. CIT(A) has correctly deleted the addition made based on a dumb document seized. 4. The Ld. AO has erred in considering the decision of Hon'ble ITAT in the case of Amidyala Lingaiah ITA: 702/Hyd/2022. 5. The Appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....pon the assessee to explain as to why the purchase consideration of Rs. 2,36,34,000/- (supra) paid by him for purchasing the aforementioned property may not be considered as an unexplained investment under section 69 of the Act. In reply, the assessee submitted that he had purchased the subject immovable property from Dr Amidyala Lingaiah, but assailed the validity of the jurisdiction that was assumed by the AO for initiating proceedings under section 153C of the Act for the reason that the material seized did not belong to or relate to him. Apart from that, the assessee denied having made any cash payments and only accepted the payments made to the seller through the banking channel. 7. The AO, after deliberating on the explanation of the assessee, did not find favour with the same. It was observed by him that the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, was seized from the premises of Dr Amidyala Lingaiah, i.e., the person from whom the assessee had admittedly purchased the land. The AO observed that it was not the case of the assessee that the material was seized from an unknown and unrelated third party. Also, it was observed by him that the 454.50 sq yds (out....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... from the purchasers. The CIT(A) further observed that the Revenue being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) had carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal, which vide its order passed in the case of ACIT, Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad vs. Sri Lingaiah Amidyala in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023 had approved the CIT(A) order and dismissed the appeal filed by the Revenue. 10. The CIT(A) based on his aforesaid observations, viz., (i) that the AO while framing the assessment in the case of the assessee had failed to place on record any independent material which would support his conviction that any onmoney, i.e., amount over and above the sale consideration recorded in the registered sale deed was paid by the assessee for purchasing the subject property, i.e., 454.50 sq yds from Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra); and (ii) that the addition made based on the contents of the same seized document, viz., Page- 24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01 was vacated by the CIT(A) while disposing the appeal in the case of Dr. Amidyala Lingaiah (supra), which order had thereafter been approved by the Tribunal vide its order passed in the case of AC....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....2,000/- per sq yd and not at the value disclosed by him in the registered sale deed. As observed herein above, the aforesaid addition made by the AO in the case of Dr Amidyala Lingaiah (supra) has been vacated by the CIT(A), which order had thereafter been upheld by the Tribunal vide its order passed in ITA No.702/Hyd/2022, dated 26/04/2023. Apart from that, we find that the order of the CIT(A) vacating a similar addition based on the content of the same seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, made in the case of M/s Rutuja Projects, i.e., the purchaser of the balance 244.16 sq. yards (out of 698.66 sq. yards), which was also vacated by the CIT(A), had recently been upheld by the Tribunal and the appeal filed by the revenue in ITA No. 1689/Hyd/2025, dated 10/06/2026 has been dismissed. 17. We further concur with the view taken by the CIT(A) in the present case before us that the AO, except for relying upon the unsubstantiated contents of the seized document, viz., Page-24 of Annexure A/LA/RES/01, has failed to place on record any documentary evidence which would irrefutably substantiate his view that the assessee had paid on-money for purchasing the subject prope....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f the assessee- appellant the amount remained deposited is not more than few thousands at any time and such a huge amount of over 24 Lacs could not have been paid by him. We have thoughtfully considered the submissions made by the learned counsel and are of the view that they do not warrant acceptance. There is well known principle that no oral evidence is admissible once the document contains all the terms and conditions. Sections 91 and 92 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for brevity 'the 1872 Act') incorporate the aforesaid principle. According to Section 91 of the Act when terms of a contracts, grants or other dispositions of property has been reduced to the form of a documents then no evidence is permissible to be given in proof of any such terms of such grant or disposition of the property except the document itself or the secondary evidence thereof. According to Section 92 of the 1872 Act once the document is tendered in evidence and proved as per the requirements of Section 91 then no evidence of any oral agreement or statement would be admissible as between the parties to any such instrument for the purposes of contradicting, varying, adding to or subtrac....