आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MANJUNATHA G. ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.2308/Hyd./2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Doulthabaji Rajender, The Income Tax Officer, WARANGAL. vs. Ward-1, PAN EFYPR0735E WARANGAL.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Sri KA Sai Prasad, CA And For Assessee :

Sri Sayyad Sadak, CA For Revenue : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR Date of Hearing : 20.04.2026 Date of Pronouncement : 23.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 07.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018.

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

1. “The Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC is not correct either on facts or in law and in both.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) failed to appreciate that the notice issued under section 148A(b) allowed less than the mandatory seven days for response, resulting in denial of adequate opportunity and vitiating the order under section 148A(d) and the consequential notice under action 148.

3. Since the notice issued u/s 148 dated 31.03.2024 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, ITO Ward-1, Warangal, and not in a faceless manner as mandated, the notice is invalid and all consequential proceedings are bad in law.

4. The Learned CITIA), NFAC ignored that the assessment is based on wrong facts and incorrect figures mechanically adopted from the Insight Portal, as the AO neither verified the mismatch nor examined the data and documentary evidence submitted before him and still made an addition of Rs.1,33,22,500 u/s 68 without reconciling it with the assessee's actual cash deposits of only Rs.19,50,000.

5. The Learned CITIAL, NFAC failed to appreciate that the Ld AO assumed cash deposits of Rs.133,27,500 though the assessee's bank statements show actual cash deposits of only Rs.19,50,000 and the assessee had filed a detailed reply on 03.02.2024 in response to 148A(b) with documentary evidences but the AD ignored the reply without any enquiry and the objections were not disposed of hy a speaking order rendering the action invalid in law.

6. The Learned CITIA), SPAC failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s 148 wan beyond 3 years and since the alleged escaped income was below Rs.50 lakhs the reopening seas clearly barred by limitation under section 149(1)(a) and the assessee's bank statements establish actual rash deposits of only Rs.19,50,000 therefore the assumption of jurisdiction was invalid and the reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed in law.

7. Without prejudice the Ld CITIA) failed to appreciate that the addition u/s 68 cannot be made when income is offered u/s.44AD and the assessee is not required to maintain books of accounts the AD did not bring any evidence to show that the cash deposits represented unexplained money rather than business receipts from turmeric procurement and the burden was wrongly shifted to the assessee.

8. The Learned CITIA), NFAC was not justified in granting only two short opportunities-notice dated 26.08.2025 for hearing on 02.09.2925 and notice dated 12,09.2005 for hearing on 19.09.2025 allowing merely 7 days each, which failed to provide a reasonable or effective opportunity of being heard.

9. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify, rescind, supplement or alter any or mote grounds of appeal stated herein above either before or at the time of hearing of this appeal.”

3. Ground nos.2, 3, 6 are additional grounds raised by the assessee vide application/petition for admission of the additional grounds under Rule-11 of ITAT, Rules, 1963 challenging the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148A(b) and u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961

4. We have heard the learn