आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ 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.913/Hyd/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Shri Ankit Jain Vs. ACIT Hyderabad Central Circle 1(2) PAN:AGWPA4459K Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CA राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by:: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 07/11/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 19/12/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ankit Jain (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld.

CIT(A)”) dated 29.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19.

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

3. The assessee has also raised the following additional grounds as under vide letter dated 22.09.2025 :

“The appellant humbly seeks leave to raise the following additional grounds, which are purely legal in nature. In light of the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in NTPV vs. CIT (229 ITR 383), it is prayed that the Hon'ble Tribunal may be pleased to admit the same in the interest of justice.

1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs.36,34,707/- under section 69 based solely on a pen drive and statements of employees of M/s. Rubberwala Group seized from a third party and without bringing any independent corroborative evidence.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in relying on the presumption under section 292C, though the seized documents were not found in the possession or control of the appellant, making the addition unsustainable and in violation of the principles of natural justice”.

4. The assessee has also raised the following additional ground as under vide letter dated 24.09.2025 :

“3. Since the notice u/s 148 was issued by the jurisdiction Assessing Officer and not in the faceless assessment manner, the proceedings u/s 147 are bad in law and further proceedings are equally bad in law”.

5. The Learned Authorized Representative (“Ld. AR”) submitted that additional ground so filed are admissible in view of judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd. v. CIT (1998) 229 ITR 383 (SC). No objection has been raised by the Revenue in this regard. Accordingly, the prayer for admission of additional ground noted above which are not in memorandum of appeal are being admitted for adjudication in terms of Rule 11 of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 owing to the fact that objections raised in additional ground are legal in nature for which relevant facts are stated to be emanating from the existing records.

6. 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 2018-19 under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961(“the Act”), dated 01.03.2023. The Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

7. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, we observe that under additional ground no. 3 the assessee has raised a legal ground challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. In this regard, the Ld. AR submitted that the notice under section 148 as well as the order under section 148A(d) of the Act were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 30.03.2022 and the notice issued under se