आयकर अपील(cid:547)य अ(cid:876)धकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘SMC’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आ.अपी.सं /ITA.No.2222/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 Adilakshmi Vangala, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 045. Ward-6(1), Telangana. vs. Hyderabad – 500 028.

PAN ACRPV6738R Telangana.

(Appellant) (Respondent)

Sri R. Mohan Kumar, Advocate िनधा१ौरती (cid:554)ारा/Assessee by :

राज(cid:830) व (cid:554)ारा/Revenue by : Sri Karthik Manickam, Sr. AR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 08.04.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 17.04.2026 आदेश/ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 15.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-2017.

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

1. “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the CIT(A)

is not sustainable on facts or in law.

2. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have considered that the notice was not issued in a faceless manner rendering the entire proceedings invalid as held by the jurisdictional High Court and also this Honorable Tribunal.

3. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the respected CIT(A)

ought to have considered that the notice u/s 148 is bad in law in as much as the notice was issued in violation of provisions of section 149(2), and consequently the assessment order is not sustainable. 4. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have considered that the sources for cash deposits are from her son and delete the addition made. 5. In the facts and circumstance of the case, the CIT(A) ought to have considered that the provisions of section 69A are not attracted. 6. The appellant may be permitted to add, delete, amend any ground with leave of the Honourable Tribunal.

3. In Ground nos.1 to 3 the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act being barred by limitation.

4. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that the Assessing Officer has initiated the reopening of the assessment by issuing show cause notice u/sec.148A(b) of the Act dated 27.02.2003 on the basis of the three transactions of alleged cash deposits in the bank account of the assessee total amounting to Rs.52,10,000/-. However, out of these three transactions as alleged by the Assessing Officer, only one transaction of Rs.38,10,000/- is the transaction of deposit in the bank account of the assessee and other transactions are not related to the assessee. He has further submitted that the Assessing Officer though issued notice u/sec.133(6) of the Act to the bank of the assessee calling for the bank account statement and details, however, the Assessing Officer has passed Order u/sec.148A(d) of the Act without verifying the actual and real transactions of cash deposit in the bank account and thereafter, issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act on 24.03.2023 which is beyond 03 years from the end of the assessment year under consideration. Thus, the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has submitted that when the income escaped assessment is not more than Rs.50 lakhs and only Rs.38,10,000/- then, the notice issued by the Assessing Officer u/sec.148 of the Act beyond the 03 years is barred by limitation as provided u/sec.149(1)(b) of the Act. In support of his contention, he has relied upon the following Judgments:

Order of ITAT, Ahmedabad SMC Bench, Ahmedabad

1. in the case of Shri Ashokbhai Anbabhai Kachadiya, Bhavnagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(9), Bhavnagar in ITA.No.1373/Ahd./2025, dated 17.12.2025.

Order of ITAT, Mumbai SMC Bench, Mumbai in the

2. case of Ms. Sonali Dharmendra Mhatre, Mumbai vs.

ITO, Ward-3(2), Kalyan in ITA.No.6594/M/2024, dated 28.04.2025.

Judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case

3. of Nar