BEGUM TAHESEEN,VISAKHAPATNAM vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 206/VIZ/2026Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 July 2026AY 2021-224 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal admitted the additional ground of appeal challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice. The issue was remitted back to the CIT(A) to consider the validity of the notice in light of High Court judgments and future Supreme Court directions.

What were the facts?

The assessee appealed against additions made by the Assessing Officer for unexplained cash payments for land and flat purchases. The assessee also raised an additional ground challenging the validity of the Section 148 notice issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer.

What were the issues?

The primary issue was the validity of a Section 148 notice issued by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer in a faceless assessment regime. The Tribunal also noted conflicting statements by the Assessing Officer regarding the explanation of cash deposits.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69A,Section 69,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 250

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM

Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON’BLE & SHRI OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, HON’BLE

PER OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal is filed by the Assessee against order of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter in short “Ld.CIT(A)”) dated 15.12.2025 passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter in short “the Act”) for the Assessment Year 2021-22.

2.

In the above cited appeal, the appellant raised the main grounds of appeal stating that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustain the addition of Rs.10 lakhs made by the Learned Assessing

ITA 206/VIZ/2026 BEGUM TAHESEEN Officer (hereinafter in short “Ld.AO”) under section 69A of the Act towards alleged unexplained cash payment made for purchase of land. The second ground of appeal raised by the appellant is that the Ld.CIT(A) is not justified in sustaining the addition of Rs.4.5 lakhs made by Ld.AO under section 69 of the Act towards unexplained payment of Rs.4.5 lakhs for purchase of flat.

3.

Subsequently, the appellant has filed a petition for admission of additional ground of appeal in which the appellant has stated that assessment in the case of appellant was completed under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act vide order dated 20.03.2025 and the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 26.03.2024. The above-mentioned notice issued under section 148 of the Act is invalid as the notice was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (in short “JAO”) whereas the notice ought to have been issued in faceless manner by the Faceless Assessing Officer (in short “FAO”). In view of the same, the notice issued by the JAO is invalid and consequently all the additions made in the assessment order becomes invalid. Since this issue is a purely legal ground and assessee can rise the same at any point of time, the Learned Authorized Representative (hereinafter in short “Ld.AR”) of the appellant pleaded the Bench to admit this additional ground of appeal and render justice. The additional ground of appeal filed by the petitioner are taken into consideration and admitted for adjudication as they do not require any verification of facts and the same goes to the root of the matter.

4.

With respect to the issues raised by the appellant in the grounds of appeal, the Bench decides to adjudicate the issue relating to challenging the validity of notice issued by the JAO. In this regard, after hearing both sides, the Bench decides to remit the issue back to the file of Ld.CIT(A) for the following reasons: -

a. The order of Ld.CIT(A) at Para No. 5.1 says that the assessee filed detailed submissions with regard to the merits of the case including the source of cash deposits of Rs.10 lakhs and also the sources of receipt of Rs.4.5 lakhs allegedly paid for purchase of land. Again, at Para No. 6.4.1 and 6.4.4 the Ld.AO says that the assessee did not explain the sources of cash deposits and investments in property respectively, contradicting himself.

ITA 206/VIZ/2026 BEGUM TAHESEEN b. The appellant has filed a petition in which certain additional grounds of appeal were also raised. The assessee is challenging the very validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act by JAO because he does not have the power to issue the same and this notice should have been issued by the FAO in a Faceless manner. As several Hon’ble High Courts held that notice issued by JAO is invalid, the Ld.AR of the appellant has argued that in this case also the notice issued by JAO may be struck down as invalid and consequently all other proceedings. This ground is taken for the first time before the ITAT as mentioned above. The Bench noticed that the Hon’ble Delhi High Court supported the case of Revenue whereas several other Hon’ble High courts held that notice under section 148 of the Act should have been issued by the FAO in a faceless manner. The matter reached Hon’ble Supreme Court and the Hon’ble Apex Court remitted the above issue relating to section 148 of the Act, back to the respective Hon’ble High Courts to adjudicate the issue in view of the retrospective amendments made by the Legislature. Now the matter is to be adjudicated by the respective Hon’ble High Courts. In view of the same, this matter relating to the validity of issuing notice under section 148 of the Act by the JAO is remitted back to the file of Ld.CIT(A). He is directed to give an opportunity to the assessee and follow the direction of the Jurisdictional High Court as and when the order is passed by the Hon’ble High Court.

5.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 10th July, 2026. Sd/- Sd/- RAVISH SOOD OMKARESHWAR CHIDARA JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Visakhapatnam Dated: 10.07.2026 Giridhar, Sr.PS

ITA 206/VIZ/2026 BEGUM TAHESEEN Copy to: BEGUM TAHESEEN, FLAT NO.309, SQUARE BLOCK, SARDAR NEST, NEAR SUNDARAYYA COLONY, 1 PEDAGANTYADA, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530044, ANDHRA PRADESH THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1), VISAKHAPATNAM, 2 INCOME TAX OFFICE, PRATYAKSHAKAR BHAVAN, MVP COLONY, VISAKHAPATNAM, VISAKHAPATNAM-530017, ANDHRA PRADESH 3 THE PCIT / CIT, 4 THE D.R., ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH 5 GUARD FILE

More judgments on Section 69A

All 15,297 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69A →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →