IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE [conducted through Hybrid mode]

BEFORE SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER &

SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.584/Ind/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14 Sandhya Singh The ITO – 2(3)

121, Rohit Nagar Bawadia Kala BOPAL Bhopal – 462 016 (M.P.)

PAN No. AYCPS 9215 K (Appellant) .. (Respondent Assessee by : Adv. Sh. Gagan Tiwari Revenue by : Ashish Porwal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 18/12/2025 Date of Pronouncement 21/01/2026 O R D E R PER SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL - JM:

The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “the CIT(A)] dated

05/06/2025 passed for Assessment Year (AY) 2013-14.

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

1. That the order dated 05/06/2025 passed by the Ld. NFAC is erroneous and untenable both on facts and in law, and is in violation of the principles of natural justice. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in mechanically upholding the order passed by the Assessing Officer, without applying independent judgment or properly appreciating the facts and law involved, and without affording the Appellant adequate opportunity of hearing.

1.1 That, the Ld. CIT (A) has completely disregarded the submissions and evidences produced by the Appellant before the Ld. AO and erroneously confirmed and upheld the passing of ex-parte order against the Appellant.

2. That the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act, without considering the absence of independent application of mind by the Assessing Officer to the material relied upon.

2.1 That the Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the reassessment proceedings initiated under Section 148 of the Act for A.Υ. 2013-14, despite the fact that the Assessing Officer failed to independently apply his mind to the material alleged to be 'tangible' and forming the basis for the belief that income had escaped assessment. The reasons recorded merely rely upon third-party information without any independent inquiry, analysis, or satisfaction by the Assessing Officer. Such mechanical initiation of reassessment proceedings, without proper formation of belief based on objective material, renders the proceedings invalid and unsustainable in law."

3. That the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of ₹3,62,68,600/- made by the Assessing Officer under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, without due consideration of the facts and submissions duly placed on record during the reassessment proceedings.

3.1 That the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the reassessment order without acknowledging that the Assessee had duly filed replies on 15/03/2022 and 21/03/2022 filed during the Assessment proceedings, clearly stating that the bank account of M/s Varusha Buildcon does not belong to the Assessee, and therefore, the Assessee is not liable to explain any cash credits in that account. Further, with respect to the bank account in the name of M/s Varusha Associates, the Assessee has furnished sufficient documents to explain the cash credits therein.

3.2 That the Ld. NFAC erred in confirming the addition of ₹3,62,68,600/- made by the Ld. Assessing Officer under Section 69A read with Section 115BBE of the Act, as the said addition is illegal and arbitrary. The addition was made without proper verification or credible evidence to substantiate the alleged undisclosed income. The Assessing Officer failed to consider the explanations and documentary evidence furnished by the Assessee, which sufficiently accounted for the cash credits. Hence, the confirmation of such addition by the Ld. NFAC is unsustainable and liable to be set aside.

4. The appellant craves permission to raise additional grounds and to amend or alter the foregoing ground before the appeal is finally decided."

3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, filed