आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:373)ी रिवश सूद,(cid:586)ाियक सद(cid:735) एव ं(cid:373)ी मधुसूदन साविड़या लेखा सद(cid:735) सम(cid:407) |

Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.669/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2017-18)

Shri Sanjeev Kumar Nalam Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward – 1 PAN:AVDPN0497L Adilabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri S. Rama Rao, Advocate राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Shri Waseem UR Rehman, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 03/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Sanjeev Kumar Nalam (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 10.03.2025 for the A.Y.

2017-18.

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

The appellant respectfully submits as under:

1. The appellant has filed the present appeal against the reassessment order passed under Section 147 for the assessment year 2017-18. At the time of filing the appeal, certain important grounds relating to the issue of notice under Section 148 were not raised due to oversight.

2. The appellant submits that the notice issued under Section 148 dated 30/06/2021 is invalid, as the Assessing Officer did not follow the procedure laid down under Section 148A. The Assessing Officer did not pass an order under Section 148A(d) and did not serve any such order on the appellant before issuing the notice under Section 148. Hence, the notice itself is bad in law.

3. The appellant further submits that the notice issued under Section 148 dated 29-07-2022 is also invalid, as the Assessing Officer obtained approval from the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, whereas as per law the approval should have been obtained from the Principal Chief Commissioner of Income Tax. Since the approval was taken from the wrong authority, the notice is without jurisdiction.

4. The appellant also submits that the notice issued on 29- 07-2022 is beyond the period of limitation of three years, as the alleged escaped income is less than Rs. 50 lakhs. As per Section 149(1) (a), when the escaped income is less than Rs.50 lakhs, the Assessing Officer cannot issue notice after three years from the end of the relevant assessment year.

Therefore, this notice is time-barred.

5. The appellant further submits that the assessment order was passed beyond the time allowed under Section 153 of the Income Tax Act. Any order passed beyond the time limit prescribed in the Act is invalid and unenforceable.

6. These revised grounds relate only to legal and jurisdictional issues, and they go to the root of the validity of the reassessment proceedings. No new facts are required to be brought on record, and all the material is already available in the assessment file.

7. The omission to raise these grounds earlier was not intentional, but due to oversight. The appellant therefore prays that these revised grounds may kindly be admitted in the interest of justice.

PRAYER In view of the above, the appellant respectfully prays that this Hon’ble Tribunal may kindly:

a. Admit the revised/additional grounds of appeal relating to the issue of notice under Section 148 and the validity of the reassessment proceedings; and b. Pass any other order that may be deemed fit in the interests of justice.”

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) against the order of the Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”) passed for Assessment Year 2017-18 under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), dated 31.05.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

4. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal be