Govardha Naidu Chintakunta vs. ITO, Ward-1

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Govardhanaidu Chintakunta, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the Assessment Year 2011-2012. The appeal was regarding the order dated 11.10.2025, which upheld the addition of unexplained cash and unexplained investment in jewelry. The assessee argued that the cash found during the search was already accounted for in his books and that the jewelry belonged to his family members. The Income Tax Officer and the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) maintained that the assessee failed to explain the source of the cash and jewelry.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law.
• 2. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) failed to properly appreciate the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.
• 3. Whether the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in not adjudicating the issues relating to addition of unexplained cash and investment in jewelry.

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Precedents Relied Upon

Similar Judgements

• Madhuri Dilip Gaikwad, Vaibhav Gaikwad, and Prem Dilip Gaikwad vs. PCIT (Central), Pune

  Pune bench

• Kamal Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer

  Delhi Bench benchAY 2017-18Partly Allowed

• Ishtiyaque Ahmed vs. DCIT/ACIT, CC-4(3), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2020-21, 2021-22, 2022-23, 2019-20, 2020-21 & 2022-23Allowed

• ITA No. 6136/Mum/2024

  Mumbai Bench benchAY 2010-11Remanded

• Parag Suresh Vakharia v/s Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax

  Nagpur bench

• ASHOK KUMAR TYAGI VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2012-13Allowed