LOKNIDI VARSHA RAO,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD 14(3), PUNE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “A”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R. K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2574/PUN/2025 िनधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Loknidi Varsha Rao, Vs. ITO, Ward-14(3), Pune. C-4, 404, Rose Parade Apts Kondwa, Off. NIBM Road, Kondwa, Pune- 411048. PAN : AHIPR4184R Appellant Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by Shri Rajesh Haladkar : Date of hearing : 15.07.2026 Date of pronouncement : 16.07.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER VINAY BHAMORE, JM: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.09.2025 passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC for the assessment year 2019-20. 2. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, order passed u/s 147 rws 144B dt. 21/03/2024 is illegal and bad in law and is liable to be quashed. 2. That, on the facts and in law, notice issued u/s 148 dt. 14/03/2023 is not sustainable in law and void as it has been issued without obtaining a valid approval from Ld. PCIT, Pune- 4, Pune. That the approval order passed by Ld. PCIT, Pune-4, Pune, has no DIN (Document Identification Number) which is in defiance of Circular no. 19 of 2019 dt. 14/08/2019 issued by CBDT and hence the impugned approval is illegal and not a

2 ITA No.2574/PUN/2025 valid approval in the eyes of law. That, in the absence of a valid approval u/s 151 by the specified authority, order passed u/s 148A(d) dt. 14/03/2023 and notice issued u/s 148 dt. 14/03/2023, both are, not valid and therefore consequential order passed u/s 147 dt. 21/03/2024 is also not sustainable in law and liable to be quashed, following the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT [464 ITR 430]. 3. That, on the facts of the case, it is apparent that notice u/s 148 dt. 14/03/2023 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO), i.e., Sri Anish Kumar, Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(3), Pune, and not under "automated allocation system and therefore, the impugned notice is invalid and bad in law being issued by the JAO as the same is not in accordance with section 151A of the Income Tax Act. Therefore, the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B dt. 21/03/2024, pursuant to such invalid notice, is also invalid and bad in law and the order is liable to be quashed, following the judgment of Hon'ble Jurisdictional Bombay High Court in case of Hexaware Technologies Ltd. Vs. ACIT [464 ITR 430]. 4. That, on the facts and law, Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 90,00,000.00 made by Ld. AO and therefore, the impugned addition is liable to be deleted. 5. That the appellant reserves the right to add, alter or delete any ground.” 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and has not filed the return of income u/s 139 of the IT Act for the period under consideration. On the basis of information that the assessee had received commission/brokerage income, interest income and business income totalling to Rs.1.14 crores and had also made payments in respect of credit card bills and despite having substantial income, the assessee has not filed his return of income for the year under consideration, the Assessing Officer concluded that income chargeable to tax has

3 ITA No.2574/PUN/2025 escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147 of the IT Act. Therefore, after following the procedure of section 148A(b)/(d) of the IT Act, notice u/s 148 of the IT Act was issued on 14.03.2023. In response to above notice, the assessee furnished his return of income on 14.04.2023 by declaring an income of Rs.17,59,450/-. Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2), 142(1) and show cause notices respectively were issued to the assessee and after considering the material available on record, the Assessing Officer vide order dated 21.03.2024 completed the assessment proceedings u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act by determining the income of the assessee at Rs.1,07,72,988/- as against the income of Rs.17,59,450/- retuned by the assessee in response to notice u/s 148 of the IT Act. The above assessed income includes the addition of Rs.90,00,000/- being disallowance on account of non- genuine/bogus expenses and addition of Rs.13,538/- on account of interest income on FDR. 4. Being aggrieved with the above assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Since the assessee remained absent before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed.

4 ITA No.2574/PUN/2025 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. When the appeal was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared from the side of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed before the Bench despite due service of notices of hearing. Therefore, we proceed to decide the appeal on the basis of material available on record as well as after hearing Ld. DR. 7. We have heard Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. In this regard, we find that in first appeal, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC granted not less than 3 opportunities to the assessee to support the grounds of appeal, however, the assessee remained non-compliant. Even before us, when the case was called for hearing, neither anybody appeared nor any application for adjournment was filed, despite due service of notice of hearing. From the perusal of order sheet, we find that on earlier 3 occasions also, when the appeal was fixed for hearing before the Bench, the assessee or his Authorized Representative remained absent. 8. Since no submission was made before us by the assessee, in support of grounds of appeal including the ground with regard to addition of Rs.90,00,000/- being disallowance on account of non-

5 ITA No.2574/PUN/2025 genuine/bogus expenses made by the Assessing Officer and confirmed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, we are unable to draw any inference. We therefore confirm the order passed by Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC wherein the additions made by the Assessing Officer were sustained by him and accordingly, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee. Thus, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are dismissed. 9. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 16th day of July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- (R. K. PANDA) (VINAY BHAMORE) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER पुणे / Pune; �दनांक / Dated : 16th July, 2026. Sujeet/DOC Sujeet Kumar Digitally signed by Sujeet Kumar Sharma Sharma Date: 2026.07.17 12:27:29 आदेश क� �ितिलिप अ�ेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : +05'30' अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 1. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 2. 3. The Pr. CIT concerned. िवभागीय �ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “A” ब�च, 4. पुणे / DR, ITAT, “A” Bench, Pune. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 5. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // Assistant Registrar आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे / ITAT, Pune.