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 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.1700/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2017-18)

Laxmi Venkata Krishna Rice VS. Income Tax Officer, Corporation, Ward-1, Nalgonda. Suryapet.

PAN: AAEFL6494M (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

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

Department Represented by : 11/12/2025 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 17/12/2025 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee firm is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 01/08/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 16/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1) The order of the learned CIT (A) is erroneous both on facts and in law;

2) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the notices u/s 148A(b) and u/s 148 and order u/s 148A(d) are not issued by the appropriate authority and the assessment is not validly made;

3) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in completing the assessment ex-parte u/s 144 of the I.T. Act without providing proper opportunity to the appellant herein;

4) The learned CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that no proper opportunity was given to the appellant and he should have decided the appeal by annulling the assessment order, 5) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in treating the amount deposited into the bank account of Rs.66,50,000/- as the income of the appellant; 6) The learned CIT (A) erred in not considering the fact that the income is wrongly taxed at the rate of 60% and not at the normal rate of 30%;

7) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the charging of interest u/s 234A and 234B of the 1.T.Act.

8) The learned CIT (A) erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in charging interest u/s 234A and 234B of the

1.T.Act;

9) Any other ground/grounds that may be urged at the time of hearing”.

2. Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal, which reads as under:

"The learned CIT (Appeals) ought to have considered the fact that the notice u/s 148A(b), the order u/s 148A(d) and the notice u/s 148 were issued with the approval of Principal CIT and not by the Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax or the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income-Tax"

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

4. Succinctly stated, the AO based on the information that the assessee firm during the demonetization period, i.e., 09/11/2016 to 31/12/2016 had made cash deposits of Rs.66.50 lakhs in its bank account No.032913100023220, Kodad Branch, Suryapet, but had not filed its return of income, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 27/07/2022 was passed by the AO.