A reassessment notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act for past assessment years cannot be saved by the fifth and sixth provisos of Section 149 if it violates the time limit restrictions imposed by the first proviso regarding the un-amended Act's limitation period.

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 20/11/2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “AO”) under section 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short, “the Act”), dated 19/01/2024. The assessee has assailed the impugned order of the CIT(A) on the following grounds of appeal:

1. ““The order passed by the learned Assessing Officer and confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 dt. 20.11.2025 is erroneous both on facts and in law to the extent it is prejudicial to the interest of the appellant.

2. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the notice u/s.148A(b) issued on 23.03.2023, as it is without jurisdiction, as it has been issued by the Jurisdictional A.O Ward-2, Karimnagar, Telangana.

3. The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, erred in law and on facts in not appreciating that the learned Jurisdictional Assessing Officer had erroneously assumed jurisdiction for passing the order under s.148A(d) of Income tax Act, 1961 (for short the Act) dated 07-04-2022 ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042605328(1) and vide DIN: consequential notice under section 148 of the Act dated 08-04-2022 vide DIN: ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022-23/1042648220(1), whereas, in terms of section 144B of the Act, the jurisdiction to issuance of such notice vests with the Assessing Officer of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), the entire reassessment proceedings are liable to be quashed

4. The reassessment order is void ab initio as it was passed without valid service of notice on the assessee and in denial of reasonable opportunity of being heard, since all communications were sent only to the Tax Consultant and not to the assessee, in violation of principles of natural justice.

5. The assessee had no knowledge of the reassessment proceedings, as the email ID and mobile number on the Income-tax portal during the assessment period belonged to the Tax Consultant. Due to non-receipt of any notice, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings, and the assessment was completed ex parte, rendering the order unsustainable on facts.

6. The appellant is a rural agricultural commission agent and merely acts as an intermediary for facilitating payments between farmers and agricultural harvesters, the amounts deposited in the bank account represent operational and circulating funds received from farmers for onward payment to harvesters and do not constitute the income of the appellant.

7. The addition made by the Ld. AO is in violation of the principles of natural justice, as no opportunity was afforded to the appellant to explain the one-to-one or reasonable nexus between withdrawals and deposits, though the bank statements were already available on record.

8. The Ld. Assessing Officer erred in law and on facts in treating the cash deposits in the appellant's bank account as unexplained, without appreciating that substantial corresponding cash withdrawals were made from the same bank account, which were available for re-circulation and re-deposit in the course of the appellant's commission agency business.

9. The Ld. AO failed to record any finding that the cash withdrawals made by the appellant were utilized for any non-business or unexplained purposes. In the absence of such adverse finding, the subsequent redeposit of the same cash cannot be treated as unexplained

10. The appellant may, add or alter or amend or modify or substitute or delete and/or rescind all or any of the grounds of appeal at any time before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”

2. Succintly stated, the AO based on