, आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण विशाखापटणम पीठ म IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench श्री रिीश सूद, माननीय न्याययक सदस्य एिं श्री एस. बालकृष्णन, माननीय लेखा सदस्य SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BALAKRISHNAN. S, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.441/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Income Tax Officer Vs. Ammaji Chennupati Ward-2(5) Rajeevnagar Visakhapatnam Kurmannapalem [PAN : AYZPC3377M]

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Cross Objection No.07/Viz/2025 (Arising out of आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.441/Viz/2024)

(निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Ammaji Chennupati Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajeevnagar Ward-2(5)

Kurmannapalem Visakhapatnam [PAN : AYZPC3377M]

(अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ : Shri G.V.N.Hari, Advocate Assessee Represented by राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.DR Department Represented by सुिवाई समाप्त होिे की ततति/ : 03.09.2025 Date of Conclusion of Hearing घोर्णध की तधरीख/Dt. of Pronouncement : 09.09.2025

O R D E R

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

The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.08.2024, 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 08.05.2023 for A.Y. 2017-18. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

2. Apart from that, the assessee is before us as a cross-objector on the following grounds:

1. The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) is justified in quashing the notice issued u/s 148 by the Jurisdiction Assessing Officer.

2. Without prejudice to the above, The learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals) ought to have held that the assessing officer is not justified in making addition of Rs.1,33,51,500 u/s 69 of the Act by considering the Long Term Capital Gains on sale of shares as unexplained.

3. Any other grounds of Cross-Objection that may the raised at the time of hearing.

Further, the assessee cross-objector has raised an additional ground which reads as under:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act on 27.07.2022 without prior approval of Pr.Chief Commissioner of Income Tax being the appropriate authority in terms of s.251(1) of the Act is invalid.”

2. The notice dt.27.07.2022 did not bear any DIN on its face and hence the same is invalid.”

3. As the assessee, by raising the aforesaid additional ground of cross- objection, has sought our indulgence for adjudicating a legal issue 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 case of National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998)

229 ITR 383 (SC).

4. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for the A.Y. 2017-18, declaring an income of Rs. 2,41,200/- after raising a claim of exempt income of Rs. 72,77,892/- u/s 10(38) of the Act.

5. Thereafter, the A.O received information from the DDIT(Inv.), Unit- 7(1) & 7(3), Mumbai, that search and survey proceedings conducted on certain accommodation entry providers had revealed that the assessee, being one of the beneficiaries, had received an accommodation entry to the tune of Rs. 1,33,51,500/-.

6. The A.O., based on the aforesaid information, issued Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 16.04.2021 (as per the pre-amended law). Thereafter, in view of the Hon’ble Supreme Court judgment in the case of UOI Vs. Ashish Agarwal and CBDT Instruction No. 01/2022 dated 11.05.2022, the A.O. treated the Notice u/s 148 of the Act, dated 16.04.2021, as a “Show Cause” notice under Section 148A(b) of the Act. Thereafter, the A.O., a