आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1561/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2015-16)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1561/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2015-16)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1561/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2015-16)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1561/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2015-16)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1561/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2015-16)

ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 17/07/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 24/02/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC is against law and facts of the case

2)The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)NFAC has failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act is barred by limitation and deserves to be quashed

3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has failed to appreciate that the notices issued under section 148 and 148A of the Act are without jurisdiction and deserve to be quashed

4) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC and 4 the Assessing officer have erred in making an addition of Rs 1,33,40,906 U/s 69A of the Act as unexplained money

5)The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC and 5 the Assessing officer have failed to take cognizance of and appreciate the evidence and explanations offered by the assessee.”

2. Also, the assessee has raised the additional grounds of appeal, which reads as under:

“6) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider that the Reopening of Assessment under section 147 is time barred as per the provisions of section 149.

7) The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have concluded that the initiation of impugned assessment itself is bad in law as the same is against the faceless scheme and thus the notice issued U/s 148 of the Act by the JAO itself is bad in law.

8) The Ld.AO erred in not considering that (CBDT) vide notification No. 15/2022 dated 28.03.2022, and notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 that it is mandatory to conduct/initiate proceedings pertaining to reassessment under Section 147, 148 and 148A of the Act in a faceless manner.”

3. As the assessee by raising the additional grounds of appeal has sought our indulgence for adjudicating certain legal issues, which require looking no further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR

383 (SC).

4. Succinctly stated, the AO based on specific information flagged as per Risk Management Strategy, formulated by the CBDT through ITBA software under the head “NMS cases”, which revealed that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, viz., (i) purchase/sale of equity shares; and (ii) cash deposits in bank account, but had not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act.

5. The ITO, Ward-4(1), Hyderabad, i.e., Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short, “JAO”) passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 07/04/2022. Thereafter, the JAO issued notice under sectio