आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एव ं(cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No. 299/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2019-20)

Venkata Ramanamma VS. Income Tax Officer, Sakamuri, Ward-1, Marripadu, Nellore.

Nellore.

PAN: CXQPS1340L (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri KA Sai Prasad, CA करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Assessee Represented by : Mrs. Payal Gupta, Sr. AR राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Department Represented by : 06/11/2025 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 05/12/2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 31/12/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessment Unit, Income tax Department, i.e., Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”)Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 144 r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated 19/02/2024 for the Assessment Year 2019- 20. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

1. “The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, is not justified in holding that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer has concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, the notices issued u/s

148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 are valid.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, is not justified in not following the decisions of the Jurisdictional High Court and also the decisions of several other High Courts, which are in favour of the assessee.

3. The Id First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the jurisdictional Assessing Officer (ITO, Ward-1, Nellore) has no jurisdiction to issue notices u/s 148A(b), order u/s 148A(d) and Notice u/s 148, as per the CBDT's Notification dated 29-02-2022; and hence, the Assessment order passed based on such illegal notices is invalid.

4. a) The learned Comfnissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, in the facts and circumstances of the case, is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs.3,96,89,476/- ignoring the appellant's claim that the credits in the bank accounts represent the sale proceeds in liquor business as evidenced by Form 26AS and fuel station and hence only Profit element is taxable income.

b) The Id First Appellate Authority is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.9,98,180/- being cash withdrawals from Banks out of credits representing business receipts taxed separately c)The Id First Appellate Authority is not justified in sustaing the addition of Rs. 28,18,631/- being the income estimated by Assessing Officer @ 10% separately on payments of Rs 2,81,86,311/- to Prohibition and excise as appearing in 26As, ignoring the fact that sale proceeds of such purchase of liquor credited in Bank were taxed entirely separately.

d) The Id First Appellate Authority failed to appreciate the fact that action of the Assessing Officer having treated as income, the entire credits in Bank being the business turnover, making separate addition for withdrawals and estimate of business income amounts to double addition and unjustified.

5. The appellant prays leave to add or amend or alter any of the grounds at the time of hearing of appeal.”

2. Succinctly stated, the case of the assessee was reopened by the AO to verify huge amounts of cash deposits, cash withdrawals and purchase of liquor during the subject year, i.e., AY 2019-20. As per the information gathered by the AO in accordance with the Risk Management Strategy, the assessee had, during th