आदेश /O R D E R

PER S. R. RAGHUNATHA, AM :

The present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.12.2025 passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “the Ld. CIT(A)”], arising from the assessment order dated 19.03.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre [hereinafter referred to as “the AO”], u/s.147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2015-16.

The brief facts of the case, as borne out from the material available on record, are that the assessee is an individual and had not filed his return of income for the assessment year under consideration. Information received by the Department revealed that the assessee had deposited cash aggregating to Rs.2,09,00,000/- in his bank account and had also received contract receipts amounting to Rs.47,32,845/- during the relevant previous year.

Based on the aforesaid information, proceedings for reassessment were initiated by issuance of a show-cause notice u/s.148A(b) of the Act on 28.03.2022. Thereafter, an order u/s.148A(d) of the Act was passed on 21.04.2022 and, consequently, notice u/s.148 of the Act was also issued on the same date. In response thereto, the assessee filed his return of income declaring a total income of Rs.5,57,170/-, wherein contract receipts of Rs.49,60,038/- received from L&T were duly disclosed.

During the course of reassessment proceedings, the AO observed that no addition was called for in respect of the contract receipts of Rs.47,32,845/- reflected in Form No.26AS, as the same had already been offered to tax by the assessee in the return of income filed in response to the notice issued u/s.148 of the Act. However, with regard to the cash deposits aggregating to Rs.2,09,00,000/- made in the bank account of the assessee, the AO was not satisfied with the explanation furnished by the assessee. Accordingly, the AO treated the said amount as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act and made an addition of Rs.2,09,00,000/- to the income of the assessee.

Consequently, the assessment was completed u/s.147 of the Act vide order dated 19.03.2024, determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,14,57,170/-.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, particularly the addition of Rs.2,09,00,000/- made u/s.69A of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld.CIT(A).

The Ld.CIT(A), vide the impugned appellate order dated 21.12.2025, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and upheld the action of the AO in treating the cash deposits of Rs.2,09,00,000/- as unexplained money u/s.69A of the Act.

Still aggrieved, the assessee is now in further appeal before the Tribunal.

At the very outset, the assessee sought to urge an additional ground of appeal assailing the validity of the reassessment proceedings on the ground that the reopening was barred by limitation. The additional ground raised by the assessee reads as under:–

That the notice issued under section 148 dated 21.04.2022 for A.Y.2015-16 is barred by limitation and without jurisdiction, inasmuch as for assessment years beginning on or before 01.04.2021, the first proviso to section 149(1) preserves the bar of limitation under the unamended section 149(1)(b), under which the outer time limit of six years for A.Y.2015-16 expired on 31.03.2022; accordingly, the impugned reassessment proceedings are void ab initio.

That the consequential reassessment order passed pursuant thereto under section 147 are bad in law, non est, and liable to be quashed, since the very assumption of jurisdiction under section 148 was time barred and invalid.

The Ld.AR, appearing on behalf of the assessee, submitted that the additional ground raised challenges the very validity of the reassessment proceedings and, therefore, goes to the root of the matter. It was contended that the issue involve