आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (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.1060/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Siva Sankara Reddy Tunga, VS. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-14(1), PAN: APIPT1664C Hyderabad.

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

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

Assessee Represented by : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Department Represented by : 26/11/2025 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 10/12/2025 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, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 16/05/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (for short, “Act”), dated

11/03/2024, for the Assessment Year 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A) is not correct either on facts or in law and in both.

2. a) The Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not appreciating that the reasons recorded for the initiation of proceedings U/s 148 are factually incorrect, since as per the reply submitted to the showcause notice U/s 148A(b), the actual deposits in the Andhra bank are Rs. 51,01,100/- only as against Rs.

1,53,03,100/- alleged in the proceeding's U/s 148.

b) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that initiation of proceedings U/s 148 on assumption of incorrect facts is not correct and bad in law.

3. Since the notice U/s 148 was issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer the proceedings U/s 147 are bad in law and further proceedings are equally bad in law.

4. a) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs.

56,14,000 under Section 69A merely on conjectures and surmises without properly appreciating the assessee's explanation supported by bank statements agricultural income certificate in the name of the spouse and details of salary withdrawals and without bringing any contrary material.

b) The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider the agricultural income certificate issued by the Tahsildar in the name of the assessee's spouse and rejected the explanation without conducting any independent inquiry or bringing any material to disprove the claim.

5. a) The Ld. CIT(A) violated principles of natural justice by not granting adequate opportunity to produce further evidence or rebut adverse inferences and by summarily rejecting the assessee's explanations.

b) The Ld. CIT(A) erred in not considering the assessee's request for physical hearing, if deemed necessary, for effective representation, thereby violating principles of natural justice and denying a fair opportunity of being heard.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any or more grounds of appeal stated herein above either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

2. The assessee, vide his petition/letter filed before us, had submitted that as the “ground of appeal No.3” (raised in the original set of grounds) is an additional ground of appeal, therefore, the same involving purely a legal issue may be admitted as the same does not require any further verification of facts.

3. We find substance in the Ld. AR’s contention and are of the view that as the assessee vide the “ground of appeal No.3” (raised for the first time before us) has assailed the validity of the jurisdiction assumed by the AO for