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.933/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year:2018-19)

Kilaru Venkata Satish, VS. DCIT, Krishna District, Central Circle-1(3), Andhra Pradesh. Hyderabad.

PAN: AXSPS5783P (अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri AV Raghuram, 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 is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 04/03/2025, 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, “the Act”), dated 08/12/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the order of the Id. CIT(A) is erroneous both on facts and in law and is passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice.

2. Without prejudice to the above, the Id. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO of Rs.50,00,000 as unexplained credit u/s.68 of the Act. The Id. CIT(A) failed to appreciate the evidence filed and thereby erred in confirming the addition without giving sufficient opportunity.

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

2. Also, the assessee has raised the following additional ground of appeal (that has been pressed before us), which reads as under:

"On the facts and circumstances of the case, the notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer u/s.148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on dt. 11.04.2022 is bad in law as the same was issued in contravention to the provisions of section 151 of the Act in respect of issue of Specified Authority, hence the subsequent proceedings and the assessment order passed dt.08.12.2023 are to be held as invalid".

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 assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2018-19 on 31/08/2018, declaring an income of Rs.16,96,810/-.

Thereafter, the AO based on information that was flagged as per Risk Management Strategy formulated by the CBDT through Insight Portal under High Risk CRIU/VRU category, observed that the assessee had during the subject year advanced an unsecured loan of Rs.50,00,000/- to Sri Pridhvi Raj Khambhampati on 05/12/2017, which was not commensurate with the income returned by him for the year under consideration, initiated proceedings under section 147 of the Act. Order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 11/04/2022 was passed by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”).

5. Thereafter, the AO in absence of any material placed on record by the assessee to substantiate the creditworthiness and genuineness of the loan transaction of Rs.50 lakhs held the same as an unexplained cash credit under section 68 of the Act. Accordingly, the AO vide his order passed under section 147