आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘A’ Bench, Hyderabad (cid:302)ी रवीश सूद, माननीय Ûया(cid:467)यक सदèय एवं (cid:302)ी मधुसूदन साव(cid:875)डया, माननीय लेखा सदèय SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1362/Hyd/2025 ((cid:467)नधा(cid:91)रणवष/(cid:91) Assessment Year: 2018-19)

Bilwa Infrastructure Limited, VS. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-1(1), PAN: AAECK3254B Hyderabad.

(अपीलाथ(cid:568)/ Appellant) ((cid:292)×यथ(cid:568)/ Respondent)

: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CA करदाताका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

Assessee Represented by : Shri AP Babu, Sr. AR राजèवका(cid:292)(cid:467)त(cid:467)न(cid:876)ध×व/

(Hybrid Hearing)

Department Represented by : 20/01/2026 सुनवाईसमाÜतहोनेक(cid:551)(cid:467)त(cid:876)थ/

Date of Conclusion of Hearing : 21/01/2026 घोषणा क(cid:551) तार(cid:547)ख/

Date of Pronouncement ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee company is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated 20/06/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 26/03/2024 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. The assessee company has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1.The order of the Ld. CIT (A) u/s 250 of the Act dt. 20/06/2025 for the AY 2018-19 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent the order is prejudicial to the interests of the appellant.

2.The Ld. CIT (A) erred in dismissing the appeal without considering the submissions made by the assessee, which is against to the principles of natural justice and against provisions of law.

3. The Ld. CIT (A) ought to have considered the fact that as per the provisions of Section 151A of the Act, the notice u/s 148 has to be issued by the AO, NFAC, Delhi after duly following the procedure as laid down u/s 148A of the IT Act, 1961, whereas, in the case of the assessee, the notice u/s 148 dt 27.04.2022 was issued by the ITO, Ward 1(1), Hyderabad and thus, the notice u/s 148 of the IT Act is invalid and is without jurisdiction, which view was supported by the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme court in SLP(civil) dairy no.(S) 33956/2025 dt. 16.07.2025 on the SLP filed by Revenue against the jurisdictional HC's order.

4. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to consider whether the notice u/s 148 issued on 27.04.2022 by the ITO, Ward-1, Hyderabad is valid instead of to be issued of said notice by the AO, NFAC, Delhi, while dismissing ground No. 4,5,6 & 7 in page no. 18 & 19 in his order.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts that the order passed u/s 148A(d) of the Act, 1961, is without the prior approval of the Specified Authority, as mandated under Section 151 of the Act. The failure to obtain such approval renders the entire proceedings invalid and non-est in law, and therefore, the impugned order is liable to be quashed.

6. The Ld. CIT(A) failed to considered that the order u/s 148A(d) of the Act Dt. 27.04.2022 is invalid and not justified to treat the case is a fit case for issuance of notice u/s 148 for this AY 2018-19.

14. The Ld. CIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO ought to considered the fact that the assessee had deducted TDS properly from their vendors and filed TDS returns, also remitted GST and filed necessary returns of the significant value.

15. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the action of the AO in rejecting the books of accounts u/s 145 is not correct and bad-in-

law.

16. The Ld. GIT (A) erred in upholding that the Ld. AO estimating the income of the assessee at an Ad hoc percentage of 8% of turnover is un-reasonable and not based on comparative results in the similar line of business.

17. The Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the profit margin