IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील स.ं / ITA No.2274/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Appellant by : Shri Sanket Joshi Respondent by : Smt. Sailee Dhole Date of hearing : 07.01.2026 Date of pronouncement : 20.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The captioned appeal at the instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2011-12 is directed against the order dated 15.07.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment order dated 26.12.2016 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’).

2. Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :

“1] The assessee submits that the notice u/s 148 issued on the basis of same-material which was available with the A.O. in the course of scrutiny asst. proceedings, without receipt of any fresh tangible material after completion of the asst. proceedings u/s 143(3), is unsustainable in law and hence, the reasst. order u/s 147 may be declared as null and void.

2] The assessee submits that in the course of the scrutiny asst. proceedings u/s 143(3), the A.O. had already conducted enquiries on the issues which formed the basis for reopening u/s 147 and hence, the notice u/s 148 issued on the basis of change of opinion, may be declared as null and void in law.

3] The learned CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition u/s 68 of Rs.83,56,232 by taxing the unsecured loans received from three parties as unexplained cash credits without appreciating that the identity and creditworthiness of the lenders and the genuineness of the loans was duly established by the appellant by furnishing various documentary evidences and therefore, the above addition made for A.Y.2011-12 was sustainable in law and on facts of the case.

4] The learned CIT(A) further erred in confirming the disallowance of Rs.1,36,378 u/s 40(a)(ia) made by the A.O. towards non deduction of interest paid to Tata Motors Finance Ltd. without appreciating that the payee was a listed NBFC who had offered the impugned interest income on loan to tax and hence, the said disallowance was not justified on facts of the case and in law.

5] The appellant craves leave to add/ alter/ amend any of the grounds of appeal.”

3. We note that the assessee has raised Ground No.2 challenging the validity of reassessment proceedings and the same being jurisdictional issue we will first take up this ground for adjudication.

4. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual having source of income from Agriculture and Poultry. Regular return of income for A.Y. 2011-12 furnished ₹

on 29.09.2011 declaring total income of 11,40,448 and ₹

Agricultural income of 3,74,600. Case selected for regular scrutiny and various details were called for by the ld. Assessing Officer on multiple occasions to which necessary replies were filed by the assessee and the assessment proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Act completed on 25.02.2014 ₹

assessing income of 14,75,600 after making additions of ₹

3,35,148. Subsequently, ld. Assessing Officer before expiry of four years from the end of the A.Y. 2011-12 issued notice u/s.148 of the Act on 18.02.2016 after recording following reasons :

“1. On perusal of the Profit & Loss account, it is noticed that the assessee has debited vehicle loan interest of Rs.1,36,378/-. On going through Balance Sheet under the head Unsecured Loans, the assessee has taken loans from TATA Motors Finance which is a NBFC (Non Banking Finance Company), TDS has to be made at source, the same is needed to be disallowed u/s 40(a)(ia) of the Act and added back to the total income of the assessee's income.

2. Further it is seen that the assessee has taken unsecured loan during the year to the tune