ORDER

PER RAVISH SOOD, JM:

The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (for short, “CIT(A)”), dated 06/10/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 25/11/2023. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

“1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A) is bad in both law and on facts of the case.

2. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order u/s 148A(d) dated 05.04.2022 and notice issued u/s 148 dated 06.04.2022 for AY 2015-16 are bad in law as the same were issued in contravention to provisions of section 149 of the Act and hence the subsequent proceedings and the assessment order dated 25.11.2023 are to be held as invalid.

3. The order u/s 148A(d) dated 05.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 for A.Y. 2015-16 are bad in law as the same were issued in contravention to provisions of Section 151A of the Act. The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) has no authority to pass order u/s 148A(d) and issue notice u/s 148 of the Act in contravention of judicial decisions. Hence the whole reopening proceedings and the assessment order are to be held as invalid.

4. The CIT(A) erred in not confirming that the notice u/s 148A(b) dated 24.03.2022 is bad in law as the period of minimum seven days for submitting the details was not provided in the notice thereby contravening the provisions of section 148A(b) of the Act and subsequently the order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 are bad in law.

5. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming that the order u/s 148A(d) dated 05.04.2022 and notice u/s 148 of the Act dated 06.04.2022 are bad in law as the same were issued in contravention to provisions of section 149(1)(b) of the Act i.e. the income chargeable to tax has escaped assessment never exceeded Rs 50 lak or more if the duplication of Financial Transaction in respect of cash deposits mentioned in the said notice were excluded by the Ld AO.

6. The CIT(A) erred in upholding the addition of Rs. 9,58,000/- made by the assessing officer as unexplained money u/s 69A of the Act.

7. The appellant craves leave to add, alter or amend the above grounds of appeal before or in course of hearing.”

Succinctly stated, the AO based on information that the assessee during the subject year had carried out substantial financial transactions, viz., (i) cash deposits in bank account maintained with State Bank of Hyderabad, Malakpet Branch: Rs.42,00,000/-; and (ii) time deposits with State Bank of Hyderabad, Malakpet Branch: Rs.13,00,000/-, but had not his return of income for the year under consideration, issued notice under section 148A(b) of the Act, dated 24/03/2022. Thereafter, the AO issued an order under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 06/04/2022. Notice under section 148 of the Act, dated 06/04/2022, was issued and served upon the assessee. In compliance, the assessee filed his return of income under section 148 of the Act on 21/02/2023, declaring an income of Rs.12,880/-.

3. Thereafter, the AO vide his order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, dated 25/11/2023, in the absence of any plausible explanation regarding the source of the cash deposits made in the assessee’s bank account during the year under consideration, amounting to Rs.9,58,000/-, held the same as having been sourced out of his unexplained money under section 69A of the Act. Accordingly, the AO, vide his order dated 25/11/2023, passed under section 147 r.w.s 144B of the Act, determined the income of the assessee at Rs.9,70,880/-.

4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(A), but without success.

5. The assessee aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us.

6. We have heard the Learned Authorized Representa