ORDER

1. The appeal in ITA No. 82/AGR/2026 for AY 2015-16, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT(A)’, in short] dated 27.11.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 15.03.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

2. At the outset, I find that the assessee has raised additional grounds before this Tribunal as under : –

“Additional legal /jurisdictional ground sought to be raised before this hon'ble ITAT:

On basis of material available on case file, based on admitted and undisputed factual position, pure question of law, being jurisdictional issue, going to the root of the matter, is sought to be raised, under rule 11 of ITAT rules,

"18. BECAUSE the reassessment proceedings initiated under section 147 of the Act by issuance of notice dated 29.03.2022 under section 148 for A.Y. 2015-16 (beyond three years) are solely predicated on cash deposits of Rs.33,00,000/- in the appellant's bank account. The said amount is below the statutory threshold prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings is barred by limitation and stands vitiated in law.

19. BECAUSE the flagged information which forms the basis of reassessment proceedings under section 147 of the Act being; Information Description Source Amount (Rs.) Cash deposit in Saving Bank Account BankofBaroda Rs.33,00,000/- CIB Transaction Bank ofBaroda Rs.40,00,000/- Total Amount Rs.73,00,000/- is either repetition or based on non-existing data, accordingly, the said amount is below the statutory threshold prescribed under section 149(1)(b) of the Act. Consequently, the initiation of proceedings is barred by limitation and stands vitiated in law.

20. BECAUSE there existed no such transaction of Rs.40,0,000/-alleged to be reported as the "CIB transaction" in the notice dated 15.03.2022 issued under section 148A(b) and order dated 29.03.2022 passed under section 148A(d), the initiation of proceedings under section 147 of the Act against the appellant is based on incorrect facts and therefore is liable to be set aside and the consequential proceedings against the appellant are not maintainable both on facts as well as in law. )

Support: For raising above legal/jurisdictional ground, reliance is placed on: Hon'ble SC decisions in cases of NTPC Ltd 229 ITR 383; Singhad Technical Education Society 397 ITR 344 and Hon'ble SC 4 Jugde bench decision in case of Raza Textiles us ITO 1973 87 ITR 539 SC: "The question whether the jurisdictional fact has been rightly decided or not is a question that is open for examination by the High Court in an application for a writ of certiorari. If the High Court comes to the conclusion, as the learned single Judge has done in this case, that the Income-tax Officer had clutched at the jurisdiction by deciding a jurisdictional fact erroneously, then the assesses was entitled for the writ of certiorari prayed for by him. It is incomprehensible to think that a quasi-judicial authority like the Income-tax Officer can erroneously decide a jurisdictional fact and thereafter proceed to impose a levy on a citizen" & Hon'ble SC 4 Judge bench decision in Karan Singh vs Chaman singh Paswan AIR 1954 SC 340.: "It is a fundamental principle well-established that a decree passed by a court without jurisdiction is a nullity, and that its invalidity could be set up whenever and wherever it is sought to be enforced or relied upon, even at the stage of execution and even in collateral proceedings. A defect of jurisdiction, whether it is pecuniary or territorial, or whether it is in respect of the subject-matter of the action, strikes at the very authority of the court to pass any decree, and such a defect cannot be cured even by consent of parties. If the question now under consideration fell to be determined only