FINAL NOTICES TO CHECK आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1658/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2020-2021 Karthik Kumar The Income Tax Officer, Kyatham, BALKONDA. Ward-1, vs.

NIZAMABAD-503218 ADILABAD – 504 001.

PAN CKMPK5137N Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by: CA Phaneendra Nag राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: B K Vishnu Priya, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 10.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19.12.2025 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 29.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2020-2021.

2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :

1. “The order of appeal passed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act dt. 29.09.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal, without admitting the appeal for adjudication on the reason of belated filing.

3. The Ld. CTT(A) erred in not condoning the delay of 37 days in filing the appeal before him, without appreciating that the appellant has reasonable and sufficient cause for such delay in filing of the appeal.

3a) The learned CIT(A) has grossly erred by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal on the reason of certain circumstances beyond the control of the appellant and the CIT(A) ought to have extended the principles of natural justice.

3b) The learned CIT(A) ought to have taken a favourable interpretation of the benevolent provisions of section 249(3) of Act and ought to have contended the delay in filing the appeal and adjudicated the grounds on merit.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted and heard the appeal on the basis of merits, rather than dismissing the appeal without appreciating that the delay is due to reasons that are beyond the control of the appellant.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in rejecting the appeal on the technical reason of delay in filing, which amounts to denial of justice to the appellant on the technical and curable delay in seeking justice.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciated that the AO erred in reopening assessment without there being any tangible material in his possession. Therefore, impugned assessment order passed by the A.O is without jurisdiction and hence liable to be quashed.

7. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have appreciate that the A.O. erred in reopening the assessment under section 147 of the Act and issuing notice under section 148 of the Act, without having reasonable satisfaction or bonafide belief on his part to show that the assessees actual income has escaped assessment.

8. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in considering the fact that the Ld. AO inadvertently invoked the provisions u/s 147 of the Act for the assessment year is invalid as there is no new tangible material found that income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment.

9. The Ld. CIT(A) sought to have fairly appreciated the position of law on the issue that when notice issued u/s 148 is invalid, the consequential assessment order passed based on the invalid notice itself, is not valid and is liable to be quashed.

10. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in reopening the assessment without considering the fact there was no failure on part of assessee to disclose fully and truly the income of the assessee to say that there is escapement of income to tax.

11. The Ld. CTI(A) ought to have appreciated the fact that, as per section 151A of the Act, the Ld. JAO Ward- (1) has no jurisdiction to issue notice u/s 148 and such notice has to be issued only by the NFAC.

12. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in passing the order without giving proper reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee, which is incorrect and bad in law.

13.