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.144/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Venkata Rama Krishnam Raju VS. Deputy Commissioner of Income Chintalapati, Tax, Circle-8(1), PAN:AFKPC3305H Hyderabad.

(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/

CA P. Yashodhan Assessee Represented by : Shri Waseem UR Rehman, राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Sr. AR Department Represented by : 04/12/2025 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 CIT(Appeals) dated 07/11/2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under Section 147 r.w.s.144B, dated 13.03.2024, for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(Appeals) on the following grounds of appeal before us.

“1. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in passing an ex parte order since the appellant failed to respond due to pressing personal obligations, including arranging finances for the appellant's daughter's overseas education, alongside business responsibilities.

2. The Appellant craves leave to add, amend, alter or rescind any of the above grounds of appeal before or at the time of hearing”

Also, the assessee has raised before us an additional ground of appeal which reads as under (as was pressed in the course of hearing of the appeal):

“3. The Learned First Appellate Authority is not justified in upholding the order of the Assessing Officer despite clear non-compliance with the mandatory provisions of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and the presence of procedural irregularities in the issuance of notices under Sections 148A and 148 of the Income-tax Act.”

As the assessee, by raising the aforesaid additional ground of appeal, has sought our indulgence for adjudicating a legal issue, which will not require looking any further beyond the facts available on record, therefore, we have no hesitation in admitting the same. Our aforesaid view is supported by the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in National Thermal Power Company Ltd. Vs. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC).

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee’s case was flagged on the Insight Portal under the category “RMS–High Risk CRIU/VRU Information” for F.Y. 2018-19. The AO, based on the financial transactions reported, including unexplained credit of Rs. 2,54,23,303/-, initiated proceedings under section 148A of the Act. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 31.03.2023, was issued by the AO. In response, the assessee filed his return of income, declaring an income of Rs. 7,98,890/-.

3. Thereafter, the AO, vide his order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, due to the failure of the assessee to comply with various notices during the assessment proceedings, wherein he had despite specific directions nor produced the confirmations or evidence for the alleged transactions with partners or the company, thus made an addition of Rs. 2,60,23,787/- by treating the same as an unexplained credit u/s 68 of the Act, and determined the income of the assessee at Rs.

2,68,22,677/-.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), who confirmed the addition made by the AO and dismissed the appeal vide an ex-parte order.

5. The assessee, being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.

6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representatives of both parties, perused the orders of the lowe