ORDER

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT:-

This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.07.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the CIT(A)”] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for Assessment Year 2016–17.

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

“I. Violation of Principle of natural justice and equity.

1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the ground raised by the appellant firm for violation of the cardinal principles of natural justice and equity on part of the AO by not providing another opportunity of personal hearing through video conferencing after the same could not be held due to technical glitches. Thus, the AO having not followed the fundamental aspect of the assessment process, ensuring a fair and reasoned conclusion contrary to the provisions of Section 144B(9) of the Act, the learned CIT(A) ought to have quashed the impugned order as held by various courts of law including the Hon'ble Gujarat High Court.

2. The learned CIT(A) further erred in not appreciating the fact that the AO had also grievously erred in not furnishing the copy of statements of Sanjay Shah/Jignesh Shah along with an opportunity of their cross examination as asked for as well as by not furnishing the material/evidences found/seized from their possession relevant to the appellant firm before making the alleged addition. The Impugned order thus deserves to be quashed as void-ab-initio.

II. Assessment u/s 147 of the Act.

1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not adjudicating the grounds raised by the appellant firm challenging the assessment u/s 147 of the Act vide notice issued u/s 148 of the Act.

2. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that no transactions have been carried out by the appellant firm as alleged and mentioned in the reasons recorded. Hence, notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act and the assessment order passed by the AO pursuant to such notice, both are bad in law and requires to be quashed.

3. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in not appreciating the fact that the proceedings u/s 147 of the Act Initiated by the AO is merely on borrowed satisfaction, without carrying out independent enquiry and applying his own mind on such information independently and thus the amended provisions of Section 148 of the Act have not been properly followed by the AO.

4. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in failing to consider the fact that original assessment for the year in question has been completed u/s. 143(3) of the Act and therefore the re-assessment proceedings initiated by the AO is nothing but re-verification and re- examination of the details already available on record and is thus based on change of opinion which is not permissible and valid as per the settled legal principles and therefore deserves to be quashed.

5. The appellant states that as per Section 151A, only Faceless Assessing Officers have the authority to issue notices u/s.148 of the Act. That since in the instant case, the notice u/s.148 having been issued by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, the said notice and subsequent assessment order requires to be quashed since JAO is not empowered to Issue such notice under the Faceless Regime as per Section 151A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 as held by various courts of law. The Impugned notice and reassessment order thus requires to be held as null & vold.

In view of the above, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and assessment completed u/s. 147 of the Act pursuant to such notice both deserves to be quashed.

III. Addition on account of alleged bogus accommodation entry against cash -Rs. 89,28,079/-

1. The learned CIT(A) has grievously erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition mad