सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of hearing: 21.04.2026

घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 30.04.2026

आदेश/ORDER

PER VIJAY PAL RAO, VICE PRESIDENT :

This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 24.10.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-2016.

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

1. “That the learned Assessing Officer ("Ld. AO") erred in law and on facts in initiating proceedings under section 148A(b) and issuing notice under section 148 dated 25.04.2022 without fulfilling the mandatory jurisdictional conditions prescribed under sections 147, 148, 148A and 149 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, and the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) ["Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in deciding to set-aside such reassessment, which is void ab initio and liable to be quashed.

2. That the reassessment proceedings for A.Y. 2015-16 were initiated beyond three years from the end of the relevant assessment year without satisfying the mandatory conditions under section 149(1)(b), as the alleged escapement of income, even as per the reassessment order, admittedly does not exceed Rs.50,00,000/-, rendering the assumption of jurisdiction invalid and time-barred.

3. That the Ld. A.O erred in issuance of notice under Section 148 was beyond the limitation period of six years prescribed under the erstwhile Section 149(1)(b), and the extended ten-year limitation period introduced by the Finance Act, 2021 for A.Y. 2015-16, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining such retrospective application, contrary to settled law, CBDT Instruction No.1/2022, and binding judicial precedents including Hexaware Technologies Ltd. v. ACIT.

4. That the reopening was based solely on unverified information obtained from the Insight Portal reflecting aggregate financial transactions, without any independent verification or tangible material demonstrating escapement of income exceeding Rs.50,00,000/-, and thus the reopening was founded on mere suspicion and conjecture rather than reason to believe.

5. That the order passed by the Ld. AO under section 148A(d) is vitiated in law due to non-compliance with the statutory procedure and safeguards mandated under section 148A, as interpreted by the Honourable Supreme Court in Union of India v. Ashish Agarwal, and the Ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the reassessment without examining such fatal procedural infirmities.

6. That the reassessment proceedings are further invalid for violation of the faceless assessment regime under section 151A read with CBDT Notification No.18/2022, as the notices were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer, rendering the entire proceedings without authority of law.

7. That the above issue relating to jurisdiction of the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer vis-a-vis the Faceless Assessing Officer, though not raised before the lower authorities, is a pure question of law arising from the assessment record and going to the root of jurisdiction, and is therefore maintainable before the Honourable Tribunal.

8. That the Ld. CIT(A) is not justified in not adjudicating upon the legal grounds specifically raised before him, though in law he was required to decide the same himself, instead of set-aside the matter to the Assessing Officer for the fresh assessment.

9. That the addition of Rs.4,73,000/- made under section 69A is unsustainable in law and on facts, as the impugned cash deposits were duly explained as redeposit of earlier withdrawals, and no incriminating material was brought on record to rebut the appellants explanation.

10. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend, modify or withdraw any of the above grounds of