, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री रविश सूद,न्याविक सदस्य एि ंश्री मधुसूदन सािवििा लेखा सदस्य समक्ष |

Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.755/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16)

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

This appeal is filed by Shri Siva Naga Rupesh Surapaneni (“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

05.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2015-16.

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

“1. The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case.

2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the order passed u/s.147 r.w.s 144B is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the issue of notice u/s.148A(b) on 28.02.2023, as it is without jurisdiction, having been issued by the Jurisdictional A.O, Ward 1, Sangareddy, Telangana.

4. The Appellate Commissioner, erred in confirming the notice issued by the Jurisdictional A.O, Ward 1, Sangareddy, Telangana, who has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s.148A(d), after the introduction of "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authority Scheme 2022", and as such the notice issued by the JAO needs to be quashed.

5 The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the issue of notice u/s.148 by the A.O which was bad in law.

6. The amount escaping of income, prescribed for reopening the assessment, under the new regime is more than Rs.50,00,000/-, if the assessment is beyond 3 years. In this case the assessment year is 2015-16 and was completed on a total income of Rs.28,32,188/- which is far below the amount of Rs.50,00,000/-. As such the notice is without jurisdiction and the Appellate Commissioner has erred in confirming the assessment order passed.

7. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of Rs.28,10,000/- u/s.69A of the Income Tax Act.

8. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.”

3. 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 2015-16 under Section 147 read with Sections 144 & 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), dated 19.02.2024. The Ld. CIT(A)

dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that under ground nos. 2 to 5 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 regards, the Ld. AR invited our attention to the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 07.04.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both the documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, issued under section 151A(1) and (2) of the Act, man