IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE JUSTICE (RETD.) C V BHADANG, PRESIDENT &

MS PADMAVATHY S, AM I.T.A. No. 5156/Mum/2024 (Assessment Year: 2013-14)

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Assessment Unit, NFAC, Beswal, Maharashtra.

House No. 385, F.No. 13, Shreedevi Vs.

Apartment, Gokul Nagar, Bhiwandi, Maharashtra-421302.

PAN: AAQPA7792R Appellant) : Respondent Appellant /Assessee by : Shri Piyush Chhajed, CA Revenue / Respondent by : Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 19.08.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 28.08.2025 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S, AM:

This appeal by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [In short 'CIT(A)'] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 31.07.2024 for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following the grounds of appeal:

“The Grounds mentioned hereunder are without prejudice to one another:-

1. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer erred in issuing notice under section 148 dated 10.07.2022, as the notice was not issued in compliance with the Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29/03/2022, the issuance of notice under Section 148 after 29/03/2022 should only be done by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Therefore, the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and should be quashed.

2. The Learned Jurisdictional Assessing officer failed to issue the Approval of the Specified Authority under section 151 of new law in faceless manner. Furthermore, the approval issued to the assessee did not have a Document Identification Number (DIN), which is a mandatory requirement as per the CBDT guidelines vide Circular No. 19/2019 dated 14/08/2019. Therefore, the approval is invalid, and the reassessment proceedings should be quashed.

3. The Learned Assessing Officer erred in not issuing the information and material relied upon to the assessee pursuant to the Supreme Court Directions and CBDT circular No. 01/2022 dated 11/05/2022

4. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in upholding an addition of Rs. 50,00,000/- under Section 69A without appreciating that complete details in respect of genuineness of the said loan were submitted during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings.

5. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 20,00,000/- u/s 69A.

6. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 29,05,664/- in respect of amounts deposited in the bank account without appreciating the detailed summary of source of said deposit which was explained during the course of assessment as well as appellate proceedings.”

2. The assessee is an Individual deriving income from house property and business income as proprietor of M/s Modern Battery Works. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) received information that the assessee has purchased immovable property and has deposited cash during the year under consideration. Since the assessee has not filed the return of income the AO reopened the assessment by issue of notice under section 148 of the Act dated 22.04.2021. As per the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India vs Ashish Agrawal (Civil appeal No.3005/2022) the JAO issued a notice under section 148A(b) of the Act dated 22.05.2022, calling on the assessee to furnish details. The assessee in response filed a letter stating that he is unable to understand the issue mentioned in the letter and sought more clarity. The JAO held that the assessee has not filed any response and subsequently passed the order under section 148A(d) on 10.07.2022 stating the at this a fit case for issue of notice under section 148. The JAO also issued notice under section 148 of the Act on 10.07.2022. The assessee filed a reply dated 23.07.2022 furnishing