आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ 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.1322/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2021-22)

Rashid Hussain, VS. ACIT, Hyderabad. Central Circle-1(3), PAN: ABUPH2993L Hyderabad.

(अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Assessee Represented by : Shri Aluru Venkata Rao, Sr. AR राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Department Represented by : 21/01/2026 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 30/01/2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

Date of Pronouncement 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)-12, Hyderabad, dated 15/07/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 06/03/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

1. The order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) under section 250 dated 15-07-2025 erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudice to the interests of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in not issuing the notice under section 143(2) of the LT Act, 1961.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the AO considered the Return of Income (ROI) filed under Section 148 in the assessment order on page A while neglecting to issue the mandatory notice under Section 143(2), which is contrary to the provisions of law. 4. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the disallowance of expenditure Ra. 16,33,050/- made by the AO without properly considering the submissions made by the assessee.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred by not adjudicating the ground no. 2 by the appellant assailing that the incriminating material in the course of search relating to assessee.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have adjudicated ground no. 2 by taking into consideration that there was no incriminating material found relating to the assessee on that the assessment and addition made is unsustainable.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have fairly appreciated the fact that the expenditure of Rs. 16.33,050/- was incurred in the ordinary course of business and should be considered as business expenditure u/s

37(1) of the Income Tax Act.

8. The appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

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

“9. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in appreciating that the AO has failed to follow the procedure as laid down in the provisions of section 151A of the Act which is against the law and is bad in law.

10. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that as per the provisions of Section 151A of the Act, the notice u/s 148 has to be issued by the AO, NFAC, Delhi after duly following the procedure as laid down u/s 148A of the Act whereas, in the case of the assessee, the notice u/s 148 dt 29-11-2023 was issued by Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad which is invalid and bad-in-law.

11. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered the Judicial pronouncements regarding the fact that the JAO has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 of the Act, which is supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(civil) dairy no.(5) 33956/2025 dt. 16.07.2025 on the SLP filed by Revenue against the jurisdictional HC's order.

12. Appellant may, add or alter or amend or