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.1586/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2020-21)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1586/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2020-21)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1586/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2020-21)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1586/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2020-21)

आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1586/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2020-21)

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 23/07/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 17/02/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2020-21. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

1. “The order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte.

3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 as invalid and hence the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the reassessment proceedings as void-ab-Initio.

4. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.84,91,663 u/s 69A of the Act towards unexplained deposits in the bank account.

5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

2. Succinctly stated, the AO based on information flagged asper Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through Insight Portal under the head NMS cases, observed that though the assessee during the subject year had carried out certain cash withdrawals (including through bearer’s cheque) in current account with the South Indian Bank Limited, but had failed to file its return of income under section 139(1) of the Act, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Notice under section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 15/02/2024 was issued to the assessee. Thereafter, the ITO, Ward-1, Ongole, i.e., the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (for short “JAO”) passed an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 24/03/2024. Further, the JAO issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 24/03/2024 calling upon the assessee to file its return of income in compliance thereto. However, the assessee despite sufficient opportunity failed to file its return of income in compliance with the aforesaid notice. Accordingly, the AO in the backdrop of the non-cooperative approach of the assessee, issued a show cause notice (SCN) under section 144 of the Act, dated 22/01/2025, wherein it was called upon to explain as to why the assessment in its case may not be framed to the best of judgment.

However, the assessee even failed to respond to the aforesaid notice.

3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO observed that the assessee had in the subject year made cash deposits of Rs.52.01 lakhs from its current account held with the Suth Indian Bank Limited. As the assessee despite lapse of a period of more than 10 months had failed to come forth with any explanation regarding its aforesaid financial transaction, therefore, the AO called for the bank statement of the assessee from its aforementioned bank. On