आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.549 & 589/Hyd/2024 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Years:2015-16 & 2013-14)

आदेश/ORDER PER MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, A.M.:

These appeals are filed by M/s. Desu Enterprises and Shri Thalla Srisailam Goud (“the assessees”), feeling aggrieved by the separate orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 26.02.2024 and 09.04.2024 for the A.Ys. 2015-16 & 2013-14 respectively. Since the issues involved in these two appeals are identical, they are heard together and one consolidated order is being passed for the sake of convenience and brevity.

ITA No.589/Hyd/2024 :

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

“ 1. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred in disallowing the grounds of the Appellant both -on facts of the case and in Law.

2. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC ought to have noticed that the notice u/s 148 of the old law having been issued on 01.04.2021, the entire assessment proceedings consequent to such notice are bad in law in the light of the decision of the Apex Court in the Ashish Agarwal (444 ITR 1).

3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/NFAC erred rejecting the legal grounds raised by the Appellant w.r.t. initiation of reassessment proceeding without following due procedure prescribed under the statute.

4. The NFAC ought to have appreciated that the Assessing Officer had not recorded proper satisfaction and further initiated reassessment proceedings under the old law beyond the period of six years. from the end of the relevant assessment year and therefore the assessee not only suffers from lack of jurisdiction but also passed in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)/NFAC erred in confirming the arbitrary addition of Rs.2,06,60,990/- made by the Assessing Officer referable to the cash deposits, which were added multiple times without even examining and verifying the data populated in the Department's database. In fact actual cash deposits are only to the tune of Rs. 47,10,198/- and the same are supported by valid source.

6. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)/NFAC further erred in stating that Appellant had not furnished bank statements to verify the double additions and duplicate entries overlooking the material placed on record during the course of assessment proceedings as well as appellate proceedings.

7. The Ld. Commissioner(Appeals)/NFAC ought to have accepted the source for the actual cash deposits i.e., gross receipts from the traditional toddy business, agriculture income etc., more particularly when there is no contrary finding in this regard by the Assessing Officer and additions were made without application of mind by mechanically relying on the wrong and incorrect information reported in the Department's data base.

8. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant submits that the Hon'ble ITAT may be pleased to quash the assessment order as it is bad in law or in the alternative delete the arbitrary additions upheld by the CIT(Appeals)/NFAC.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the assessment order passed by the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”), dated 29.03.2022. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee by confirming the order passed by the Ld. AO.

4. Aggrieved with the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset we find that, under grounds nos. 2 and 3, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. In this regards