, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण विशाखापटणम पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench , , श्रीरिीशसूद माननीयन्याययकसदस्यएिंश्रीमिुसूदन सािडिया माननीयलेखासदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.54 and 55/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Years : 2015-16 and 2016-17)

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Krishna District. Ward –2(3), Andhra Pradesh. Vijayawada.

PAN : AXFPB8820K.

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee : Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.AR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 27.03.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 15.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

प्रनत रवीश सूद, जे.एम./PER RAVISH SOOD, J.M.

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 21.11.2024, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 01.02.2024 for A.Y. 2015-16 and A.Y. 2016-17. As common issues are involved in the captioned appeals, therefore, the same are taken up and disposed of by this consolidated order. 2. We shall first take up the appeal filed by the assessee for A.Y. 2015-16 in ITA No.54/Viz/2024 wherein the impugned order has been assailed on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961, dt. 01.02.2024, as upheld by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ["CIT(A)"], National Faceless Appeal Centre ["NFAC"], vide order passed u/s 250, dt. 21.11.2024, is contrary to the facts of the case and the provisions of law.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal, ex-parte, without granting a reasonable opportunity to the assessee, thereby violating the principles of natural justice.

3. The disposal of the appeal ex-parte by the Ld. CIT(A) is against the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Income Tax Act which obligates the CIT(A) to dispose of the appeal on merits.

4. The Ld. Assessing officer NFAC who completed the assessment is not the jurisdictional officer, since assessee is an NRI, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that the assessment completed by AO NFAC is without jurisdiction, therefore, the impugned order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 ought to have been dismissed.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have held that AO NFAC is not correct in bring into tax the amount of Rs.38,70,700/- under the guise of unexplained cash deposits in bank accounts ignoring the factual aspects of the subject issue.

6. For these and other reasons that may be urged at the time of hearing, the appellant prays that the orders passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act be set aside and the additions made by the Assessing Officer be deleted.”

3. Succinctly Stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out certain financial transactions, viz., (i) Cash deposits/Time deposits in his bank account aggregating to Rs.1,28,45,700/-; and (ii) Receipt of interest income Rs.47,031/- but had not filed his return of income, thereby issued a Show-Cause Notice (for short “SCN”), under Section 148A(b) of the Act. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation, therefore, the AO issued notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 08-04-2022.

4. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO called upon the assessee to put forth an explanation as regards the cash deposits made during the subject year in his bank accounts. As the assessee failed to come forth with any explanation to the satisfaction of the AO regarding the cash deposits of Rs. 38,70,700/- viz., (i) Cash deposits in S.B Account No.0892103020488 wit