आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी (cid:874)वजय पाल राव, उपाÚ य¢ एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, लेखा सदèय के सम¢ ।

BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA Nos.1527 & 1528/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2016-2017 & 2020-2021 Brijesh Chandwani The DCIT, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad – 500 034 vs.

Hyderabad.

PAN ADKPC1537H (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: CA Pawan Kumar Chakrapani राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: Sri Ranjan Agrawala, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 17.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against the two separate Orders of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, both dated 22.09.2025, for the assessment years 2016-2017 and

2020-2021, respectively.

ITA.No.1527/Hyd./2025 – A.Y. 2016-2017 :

2. For the assessment year 2016-2017 the assessee has raised the following grounds :

1. “The order of the learned Authorities below in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, equity, weight of evidence, probabilities and the facts and circumstances in the Appellant's case.

2. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act, by issue of notice dated 29/07/2022 under section 148 of the Act, which is bad in law and without jurisdiction and is merely based on external information with which the Appellant has no nexus, it can be construed as change of opinion, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in relying on the third-party statements recorded during the survey action under section under section 133A of the Act, carried out in the case of JM Financial Asset Management Limited, for reopening a concluded assessment, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, beyond the limitation period which is bad in law, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

5. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in taking approval while issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, from the Honorable Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax 1, Hyderabad, even when the case is beyond the three years, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

6. Whether the learned Authorities below (i.e.) Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) is justified to initiate proceedings pertaining to re-assessment under section 148A and 148 of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

7. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed for an amount being Rs.48,14,31,240/-, as against the returned income of Rs.12,74,95,910/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

8. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in disallowing the short term capital loss of an amount being Rs.35,39,35,330/-, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

9. Whether the learned Authorities below are justified in arriving at the unit loss of Rs. 1,53,71,792/-, and recalculating the short term capital gain, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

10. The Appellant denies himself liable to interest under section

234A, 2348 and 234C of the Act, under the facts and circumstances of the case.

11. The Appellant craves leave to add, alter, delete or substitute any of the grounds urged above.

12. In the view of the above and other grounds that may be urged at the time of the hearing of the appeal, the Appellant prays that the appeal may be allowed in the interest of justice and equity.”

3. Through ground no.4, the assessee has raised the legal issue challenging the validity of the notice issued u/sec.148 being barred by limitation beyond the surviving period.

4. The assessee is an individual and filed h