आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC-B’ 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 MANJUNATHA G., ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.471/Hyd/2025 Assessment Years – 2019-2020 Sudhaker Munigeti, The Income Tax Officer, ADILABAD – 504 001. vs. Ward-1, Telangana. Adilabad.

PAN ACAPM9247K Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: CA, A Srinivas राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: MS Malathi B. Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 27.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 03.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER MANJUNATHA G. A.M. :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 19.02.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment years 2019-2020.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds in the instant appeal :

1. “The order of the Appellate Commissioner is contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case

2. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the notice issued by the A. O, and in consequence the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s

1448, which is bad in law and deserves to be quashed

3. The Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the issue of notice u/s 145A(b) issued by the A.O, on 28.02.2023, as its without jurisdiction, it being issued by the Jurisdictional A.O. Ward 13(1), Hyderabad, Telangana.

4. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have seen that the Jurisdictional A.O, Ward 13(1). Telangana, has no jurisdiction to issue a notice u/s, 148A(d), after the introduction of "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authority Scheme 2022", and as such the notice issued by the JAO needs to be quashed.

5. The Appellate Commissioner ought not to have ignored the judgement of the Telangana High Court, in the case of Kankala Ravindra Reddy, which is the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court, which says that the jurisdictional A.O, has no powers to issue notices, after the introduction of "Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authority Scheme 2022

6. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have followed the rule of Judicial Precedence which demands that the view favourable to the assessee must be adopted, as laid down in the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Vegetable Products Ltd, 88 ITR 192

7. The Appellate Commissioner ought to have noticed that, the first notice issued under section 143(2) and the second notice issued under section 143(2) differ on the nature of income escaping assessment, and as such has been issued without application of mind and needs to be quashed

8. Without prejudice to the above grounds, the Appellate Commissioner erred in confirming the addition of an amount of Rs.36,03,333/-, being long term capital gain.

9. Any other grounds which the Assessee may urge either before or at the time of the hearing.”

3. Through ground nos.2 to 5, 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 did not file his return of income during the assessment year 2019-2020 under consideration. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short “JAO”] thereafter issued notice u/sec.148 dated 29.03.2023 and in pursuance to Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Union of India And Ors. vs. Ashish Agarwal [2022] 444 ITR 1 (SC), the Assessing Officer issued notice u/sec.148A(b) on 28.02.2023. The assessee did not file any reply to the said show cause notice and the Assessing Officer passed the order u/sec.148A(d) on 29.03.2023. On the same day, the Assessing Officer has also issued notice u/sec.148 dated 29.03.2023. The assessee has filed it’s return of income in response to notice dated 29.03.2023 issued u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961, on 14.04.2023 declaring total income of Rs