आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Manjunatha G., Accountant Member and Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.413/Viz/2024 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2019-20)

Deputy Commissioner of Vs. Smt. Doddi Roopa, Income Tax, Visakhapatnam.

Circle-3(1), Visakhapatnam. PAN: ATFPR7237N (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri GVN Hari, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Shri Badicala Yadagiri, CIT-DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing: 15/10/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 10/12/2025 Pronouncement:

आदेश / ORDER PER. RAVISH SOOD, J.M:

The present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 25/07/2024, 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 07/03/2024 for the Assessment Year 2019-20. The revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us:

“1. The Order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi is erroneous in law and to the facts of the case Doddi Roopa

2 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in adjudicating that the order passed u/s.148A(d) is devoid of merit and hence the notice issued u/s. 148 is therefore quashed

3. The Ld.CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the report of the Investigation Wing clearly mentions that summons u/s. 131(1A) were issued to both the assessee and also her husband and it was he who had produced the books of account on behalf of the assessee and had also accepted the fact of bogus purchases made so as to claim input tax credit.

4 The Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.4,99,65,247/- without causing any further verification or enquiry as regards the purchases made from M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises since the said seller was unavailable at the address mentioned by the assessee, particularly in the light of the fact that there was an admission of bogus purchases by the assessee's husband.

5. As regards the issue of jurisdiction of the JAO to issue notice u/s. 148, the decision of the Ld.CIT(A) is not acceptable since both the decisions i.e. of the Telangana State High Court and also of the Bombay High Court have not been accepted by the Department and have been contested through a SLP filed before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and presently these matters are pending.

6. The appellant craves leave to add or delete or amend or substitute any ground of appeal before and/or at the time of hearing of appeal.

7. For these and other grounds that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing, it is prayed that the above addition be restored.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee is engaged in the business of supplying spare parts of ships and also undertakes installations and repairs to ships under the name and style of M/s. Shiptech. The AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year, i.e., AY 2019-20, had made bogus transactions to the tune of Rs. 4,99,65,247/- with M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises and M/s. Vihan Enterprises initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Thereafter, an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 29/03/2023, was passed, and a notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 29/03/2023, was issued by the AO. 3. During the course of the assessment proceedings, the AO for verifying the authenticity of the assessee’s claim of having made genuine purchases from the aforementioned concerns, viz., M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises and M/s. Vihan Enterprises called upon her to place on record supporting documentary evidence. However, the assessee in response only submitted a copy of the ledger account of M/s. A.K. Capital Enterprises as was appearing in her books of accounts. The AO, taking note of the fact that the assessee had neither submitted any contract/agreement nor any ledger con