IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES “SMC”, NEW DEALHI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Assessment Year: 2016-17)

(Physical hearing)

Bhagirathi Krishnan, Income Tax Officer, Ward-35(5), C/o-Anil Jain DD & Co. 611, 6^th Floor, Vs Civic Centre, Surya Kiran Building, 19- K.G. Marg, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110001 PAN:AQZPK1479J Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Anil Jain, CA &

Shri Pritam Kumar, Adv.

Revenue by Shri Virender Kumar Singh, Sr. DR Date of Institution of appeal 29.10.2025 Date of hearing 01.12.2025 Date of pronouncement 01.12.2025 Order under section 254(1) of Income Tax Act PER PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER;

1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 04.09.2025 for assessment year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

“1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate the fact that the initiation of proceeding u/s 147 is illegal, bad in law, without jurisdiction and time barred and thus assessment order passed requires to be quashed.

2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the notice issued under section 148A(b), the order passed under section 148A(d), and the consequential notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 is illegal, bad in law, time barred and without jurisdiction and thus assessment order passed requires to be quashed.

3. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the notice issued under section 148A(b), the order passed under section 148A(d), and the consequential notice issued under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), are illegal, bad in law, time barred and without jurisdiction, since as per the Faceless Assessment Reassessment Scheme and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, such notices and orders are required to be issued only by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO). That accordingly, the entire proceedings initiated are void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in sustaining the addition of Rs. 7,25,000/- u/s 69 of the Income Tax Act with regard to investment made in purchase of immovable property.

5. That on the facts and the circumstances of the case and the provisions of the law, the learned CIT(A) has erred in forming an incorrect opinion without confronting the same and in using the same adversely without providing the reasonable opportunity of defending, which inaction of the AO makes the assessment proceedings and consequential assessment order as null and void.

6. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and the provision of law, the Ld. AO has erred in initiating the penalty proceeding u/s

271(1)(c) and 271F of the IT Act.”

2. Rival submissions of both the parties have been heard and record perused. The learned Authorized Representative (AR) of the assessee submits that the assessee has raised legal grounds of appeal challenging the validity of notice issued under section 148 as well as addition on merit. The ld. AR of the assessee while referring the notice under section 148 dated 25.03.2023, a copy of which is filed at page no.1 to 14 of the paper book, submitted that case of the assessee for AY 2016-17 was reopened beyond the period of three years from the end of the relevant assessment year. The Assessing Officer while passing the assessment order made addition of Rs.7,25,000/- and Rs.93,287/- only, hence, the income allegedly escaped from assessment was admittedly less than Rupee fifty lacks. Thus, no notice under section 148 for AY 2016-17 could be issued on 25.03.2023. Time period of three years from the end of relevant assessment years expired on 31.03.2020. The ld. AR of the assessee while explaining the facts submits that