आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ 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 A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1543/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Smt. Lalitha Kuchibhatla (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 26.08.2025 for the A.Y

2016-17.

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground of appeal:

“a. The Income Tax Officer Ward 1(1), Tirupati has no jurisdiction to issue notice under section 148A(b); pass an order under section 148A(d) and issued notice under section 1458 of the I.T. Act and, therefore, the consequent proceedings including the order of assessment are invalid.

b. The A.O is not justified in passing order under section 147 when the income escaping assessment is less than the threshold limit of Rs.50 lakhs and the notice under section 148 was issued after a period of three years from the end of the assessment year.

c. The A.O and the CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the notice under section 148A(b) was not served; the said notice was issued after a period of three years and that the income escaping assessment is less than Rs.50 lakhs and accordingly, the notice under section 148 is not valid”.

4. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) has submitted that additional grounds so raised is admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”) did not raise any objection for admission of the additional grounds. The prayer for admission of additional grounds is being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional grounds are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records.

5. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed for Assessment Year 2016-17 under Section 147 read with Sections 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), dated 12.02.2024. The Ld. CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

6. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that under ground no. (a) of the additional grounds of the appeal, the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In this regards the Ld. AR submitted that the notice issued under section 148 as well as the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act were by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. In this regard, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 23.03.2023 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. She demonstrated that both the documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notifica