आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.1697/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Somineni Vijayalakshmi, The Income Tax Officer, vs.

Ward-11(1), Hyderabad – 500 055.

Hyderabad.

PAN AHTPV9907H (Appellant) (Respondent)

CA CS Subrahmanyam and िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा /Assessee by:

Sri V Siva Kumar, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा /Revenue by: Sri Ashutosh Pradhan, 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 15.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-2017.

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

1. “The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC (CIT(A)) is erroneous on law and on facts of the case.

2. The Assessing Officer erred in making re-assessment u/s 147, basing on notices u/s 148A and 148 issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, since, such notices and consequent re-

assessment are not valid as per various judicial decisions.

2.1. The CIT(A) ought to have dismissed the re-assessment, since the re-

assessment notice under Sections 148A and 148 were issued by the jurisdictional Income Tax Officer, Ward -11(1), Hyderabad without complying to the faceless procedure, which is mandatory.

2.2. The CIT(A) ought to have quashed the re-assessment made u/s 147, which is in consequence to order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 18/03/2023 and notice issued u/s 148 dated 19/03/2023, both of which were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1). Hyderabad and not by following the faceless procedure.

2.3. The CIT(A) ought to have following various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court that, re-assessment made in consequence of notices issued u/s 148A or 148 is null and void, if such notices are issued by the jurisdictional officer without complying with the faceless procedure.

3. Notwithstanding to the above legal grounds, the CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.22,11,800 as unexplained money u/s 69A, despite the evidences and explanations submitted during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings.

3.1. The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that, the amount of Rs.17,00,000 (out of total amount of Rs. 22,11,800) being the amount received from close relatives for the purpose of education VISA of appellant's son, as unexplained, evidenced the source and purpose of taking the amount.

3.2. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the undisputed fact that the amount of Rs. 17,00,000, taken from relatives, was never enjoyed by the assessee but was returned to the relatives within a short span of time, after the VISA purpose is achieved.

3.3. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the amount withdrawn by the assessee is towards the petty household purpose, without any basis when the appellant submitted valid documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence to prove that such withdrawal is for the sole purpose of returning the same to the relatives who had given such money earlier for the purpose of education VISA of appellant's son.

3.4. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact the appellant, being a house wife, never had the capacity to earn income of Rs.17,00,000, as above, whether explained or unexplained.

3.5. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the detailed cash flow submitted by the appellant, which explained the source for the balance amount of Rs.5,11,800, which is Rs.22,11,800 cash deposited minus Rs.17,00,000 amount taken from relatives.

3.6. The CIT(A) ought to have considered that, the levy of penalty u/s

271D by the Assessing Officer evidences that the amount of Rs. 17,00,000 cannot be considered as unexplai