, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण विशाखापटणम पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एि ंश्री एस. बालकृष्णन, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.271/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Nandigam Veerabrahmam, Vs. Income Tax Officer, R/o. Rajahmundry. Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry.

PAN: BARPV3593F (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Smt. A. Aruna, Advocate.

Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 28.08.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/ : 03.09.2025 Date of Pronouncement

O R D E R

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

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18.02.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “the Act”) dated 31.01.2024 for A.Y. 2018-19. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as barred by limitation, inasmuch as the notice was issued beyond three years from the end of A.Y. 2018-19, and the Assessing Officer did not have information suggesting that income of the appellant had escaped assessment for more than ₹50 lakhs.

3. Without prejudice to Ground No.2 above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have quashed the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act as invalid, and consequently ought to have quashed the reassessment proceedings as void ab initio, inasmuch as there was no nexus between the information available and the belief formed.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that since the Assessing Officer had not made any addition with respect to the reasons recorded in the order u/s 148A(d), he was precluded from making other additions.

5. Without prejudice to Grounds No.2 to 4 above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in rejecting the books of account.

6. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the profit estimated by the Assessing Officer at 8% is on the higher side.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement, or alter any of the above grounds of appeal at or before the time of hearing.

2. Apart from that, the assessee has raised additional grounds of appeal which read as under:

“1. The notice u/s 148A(b) issued on 27.03.2022 did not provide for clear 7 days of time to the appellant and hence the same is invalid and consequently the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed.

2. The notice dt.04.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid as the same was issued by the JAO but not the FAO, in contravention of the provisions of S.151A of the Act and hence the notice is liable to be quashed as invalid.

3. The notice dt.04.04.2022 issued u/s 148 of the Act is invalid in as much as the approval was granted by PCIT-1, Visakhapatnam which is contrary to the provisions of S.151(ii) of the Act.

3. As the assessee by raising the aforesaid additional grounds of appeal, has sought our indulgence for adjudicating legal issues which would not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is fortified by the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the