आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, िवशाखापटणम पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Visakhapatnam Bench, Visakhapatnam Before Shri Ravish Sood, Judicial Member and Shri Balakrishnan S., Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.612/Viz/2025 (िनधा१रण वष१/Assessment Year: 2016-17)

Venkata Prasad Pulipati, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Amaravathi. Ward-2(1), PAN: ASAPP8796L Guntur.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by: Shri I. Kama Sastry, CA राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of 03/12/2025 Hearing:

घोषणा की तारीख/Date of 19/12/2025 Pronouncement: आदेश / 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, (NFAC), Delhi, dated 18/09/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”) dated 30/05/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is barred by limitation as per the provisions of section 149(1)(b), effective from

01.04.2021, of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

2. The notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is barred by limitation being beyond the surviving period as determined by the Honourable Supreme Court of India in UOI vs. Rajeev Bansal.

3. The Notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is invalid as the same is issued after obtaining the approval of the Pr. CIT as against the approval of Pr. CCIT as mandated by section 151(ii) for reopening of assessment beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment years.

4. The notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is invalid as the same is issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer i.e., Income- tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur, instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre.

5. The Notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is invalid as the same is issued without DIN and the reasons for not being able to generate DIN are not mentioned in the body of the notice.

6. The Notice issued under section 148 dated 27.07.2022 is invalid as the copy of the approval by the specified authority under section 151 is not provided to the assessee along with the order under section

148A(d) as mandated by the CBDT Guidelines.

7. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating the entire consideration of Rs.11,55,505 as long term capital gains without giving any deduction towards cost of acquisition.

8. The National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in treating Rs.33,88,000/- as unexplained investment under section 69 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.

9. All the above grounds of appeal are mutually exclusive and without prejudice to one another.

10. The appellant craves leave to add to; alter; modify; delete all or any of the above grounds of appeal.”

2. Succinctly stated, the assessee had filed his return of income for AY 2016-17 on 28/09/2016, declaring a total income of Rs. 5,60,930/-. Subsequently, the AO based on information, viz., (i) that the assessee during the subject year was in receipt of land (along with construction) wherein the worth of his share as a co-owner worked out at Rs.11,55,505/-; (ii) that the assessee along with two other persons had made investment during the subject year towards purchase of an immovable property to the tune of Rs.29,63,200/-; and (iii) had sold an immovable property of Rs.4,10,000/-, reopened the case vide notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 30/06/2021. Thereafter, the AO, based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of UOI vs. Ashish Agarwal (2022) SCC Online SC 543, dated 04/05/2022, issued notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 27/07/2022.

3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order under section 30/05/2023 after making certain additi