आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, (cid:874)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.385, 386 & 387/Viz/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रण वष(cid:91)/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Gattula Lakshmi Madhavi, Vs. Assistant Commissioner Visakhapatnam. of Income Tax, PAN: AGFPG8929H Central Circle-1, Visakhapatnam.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Shri GVN Hari, Advocate (cid:467)नधा(cid:91)(cid:464)रती (cid:622)वारा/Assessee by:

(Hybrid)

राजè व (cid:622)वारा/Revenue by:

Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

15/10/2025 सुनवाई क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Hearing:

10/12/2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/Date of Pronouncement: आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Visakhapatnam-3, dated 21/03/2025, 24/03/2025 and 16/04/2025, which in turn arises from the respective orders passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, "the Act”), dated 27/03/2023; under section 271AAC(1) of the Act, dated 21/08/2023; and under section 270A of the Act, dated 21/08/2023 for Assessment year 2018-19. As the facts involved in the captioned appeals are inextricably interwoven, therefore, the same are being taken up and disposed of vide a consolidated order. 2. We shall first taken up the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No.385/Viz/2025, wherein the assessee has assailed the impugned order passed by the CIT(A), Visakhapatnam-3, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO under section 147 of the Act, dated

27/03/2023, on the following grounds of appeal before us:

1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)

is contrary to the facts and also the law applicable to the facts of the case.

2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in deciding the appeal ex-parte.

3. Without prejudice to the above, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.21,35,549 made by the assessing officer u/s 69 of the Act towards unexplained investment in flats.

4. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,52,520 of made by the assessing officer by estimating profit @ 8% of the turnover.

5. Any other ground that may be urged at the time of appeal hearing.”

Apart from that, the assessee has raised an additional ground of appeal, as under:

“The notice dated 30/03/2022 issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid as the same was issued by the JAO but not the FAO, in contravention of the provisions of section 151A of the Act and hence the notice is liable to be quashed as invalid.”

3. Succinctly stated, survey operations under section 133A of the Act were conducted on 11/02/2020 in the case of Sri GV Hari Krishna, husband of the assessee, viz. Smt. G. Lakshmi Madhavi. During the course of the survey proceedings, it was observed that the assessee had, during the subject year, acquired immovable properties and was engaged in the construction business under the name and style of M/s.

Aakruthi Constructions.

4. As the assessee had not filed her return of income for the year under consideration, i.e., AY 2018-19, therefore, the AO issued a show cause notice (SCN) under section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 14/03/2022, wherein the assessee was called upon to explain as to why her investments and business transactions may not be assessed as her undisclosed income. In reply, the assessee admitted that she had taxable income and submitted a working as per which her total taxable income for the subject year was disclosed at Rs. 12,41,770/- with a consequential tax liability of Rs. 3,73,754/- (after claiming TDS credit of Rs. 5,000/-). Against the aforesaid tax liability, the assessee had paid self-assessment tax of Rs. 84,676/- on 07/03/2020 and arr