SOMINENI VIJAYALAKSHMI,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO, WARD-11(1), HYDERABAD, HYDERABAD

The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC (CIT(A)) is erroneous on law and on facts of the case. 2. The Assessing Officer erred in making re-assessment u/s 147, basing on notices u/s 148A and 148 issued by the juri ictional Assessing Officer, since, such notices and consequent re- assessment are not valid as per various judicial decisions.

1. The CIT(A) ought to have dismissed the re-assessment, since the re- assessment notice under Sections 148A and 148 were issued by the juri ictional Income Tax Officer, Ward -11(1), Hyderabad without complying to the faceless procedure, which is mandatory.

2. The CIT(A) ought to have quashed the re-assessment made u/s 147, which is in consequence to order passed u/s 148A(d) dated 18/03/2023 and notice issued u/s 148 dated 19/03/2023, both of which were issued by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1). Hyderabad and not by following the faceless procedure.

3. The CIT(A) ought to have following various decisions of Hon'ble High Courts and Hon'ble Supreme Court that, re-assessment made in consequence of notices issued u/s 148A or 148 is null and void, if such notices are issued by the juri ictional officer without complying with the faceless procedure.

Notwithstanding to the above legal grounds, the CIT(A) grossly erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.22,11,800 as unexplained money u/s 69A, despite the evidences and explanations submitted during the assessment as well as appellate proceedings. 3.1. The CIT(A) erred in not accepting the contention of the appellant that, the amount of Rs.17,00,000 (out of total amount of Rs. 22,11,800) being the amount received from close relatives for the purpose of education VISA of 3 ITA.No.1697/Hyd./2025

2. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the undisputed fact that the amount of Rs. 17,00,000, taken from relatives, was never enjoyed by the assessee but was returned to the relatives within a short span of time, after the VISA purpose is achieved. 3.3. The CIT(A) erred in sustaining the allegation of the Assessing Officer that the amount withdrawn by the assessee is towards the petty household purpose, without any basis when the appellant submitted valid documentary evidence and circumstantial evidence to prove that such withdrawal is for the sole purpose of returning the same to the relatives who had given such money earlier for the purpose of education VISA of appellant's son. 3.4. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the fact the appellant, being a house wife, never had the capacity to earn income of Rs.17,00,000, as above, whether explained or unexplained. 3.5. The CIT(A) erred in not considering the detailed cash flow submitted by the appellant, which explained the source for the balance amount of Rs.5,11,800, which is Rs.22,11,800 cash deposited minus Rs.17,00,000 amount taken from relatives. 3.6. The CIT(A) ought to have considered that, the levy of penalty u/s 271D by the Assessing Officer evidences that the amount of Rs. 17,00,000 cannot be considered as unexplained, which is part of the total addition of Rs.22,11,800. Any 4. Any other ground that may be raised with the prior permission from the Hon'ble Tribunal during the appellate proceedings.”

In Ground nos.2 to 2.3 the assessee has challenged the validity of the notice issued u/sec.148 by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer [in short “JAO”] and 4 ITA.No.1697/Hyd./2025

We have heard the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee as well as the learned DR and considered the relevant material on record. The learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee has relied upon the decision of this Tribunal dated 08.10.2025 in the case of Vijay Kumar Kamdar, Adilabad vs., ITO, Ward-1, Adilabad in ITA.No.618/Hyd./2025 for the assessment year 2016-2017 and submitted that an identical issue has been considered by this Tribunal and decided in favour of the assessee.

On the other hand, the learned DR has relied upon the Orders of the authorities below and submitted that the issue is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., in the SLP filed by the Department against the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and, therefore, the same may be kept in abeyance till the outcome of the SLP filed by the Department before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Having considered the rival submissions as well as the relevant material on record, at the outset, we note that the ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad issued notice u/sec.148A(b) dated 27.02.2023 as under :

Thereafter, the ITO, Ward-11(1), Hyderabad passed an Order u/sec.148A(d) dated 18.03.2023 and also issued notice u/sec.148 dated 19.03.2023 which reads as under :

Thus, it is clear that the notice issued u/sec.148A(b), Order u/sec.148A(d) and notice u/sec.148 for reopening of the assessment were issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer, without following the procedure as per the National Faceless Assessment Scheme. An identical issue has been considered by this Bench of Hyderabad Tribunal in the case of Vijay Kumar Kamdar, Adilabad vs., ITO, Ward-1, Adilabad (supra) in Para Nos.7 to 9 as under :

1. Thus, it is clear that the said notice was issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer passed an order u/sec.148A(d) dated 22.03.2023 by holding that “he has satisfied that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/sec.148 of the Act”. The same is reproduced as under:

2. Thereafter, the Assessing Officer has issued notice u/sec.148 of the Act dated 23.03.2023 which reads as under :

3. It is manifest from the above notice as well as the Order u/sec.148A(d) of the Act that these proceedings were conducted by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer and not in the Faceless manner as prescribed under the Income Tax Act. At the outset, we note that an identical issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of M/s. Pitti Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Hyderabad vs., ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad in ITA.No.450/Hyd./ 2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019 vide Order even date wherein the Tribunal in paras 5 to 5.2 of it’s Order held as under :

02.2023 by JAO. For ready reference, the same is reproduced as under :

Thereafter, the AO also passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite sufficient time allowed to the assessee in accordance with the provisions of section 148A(b) for compliance to the show cause notice dated 21.02.2023, there is no compliance on behalf of the assessee to the said show cause notice. The AO decided that it is a fit case for issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act and consequently notice u/s 148 was issued on 30.03.2023 as under :

Undisputedly, the show cause notice u/s 148A(b) as well as notice u/s 148 were issued by the JAO and not by the faceless Assessing Officer. At the outset, we note that the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court has considered an identical issue in assessee's own case for the immediate preceding assessment year i.e. 2015-16 vide judgement dated 24.04.2025 in W.P.No.344 of 2025 and has recorded the issue involved in the said petition in para 4 of the said judgement as under :

It was further noted by the Hon’ble juri ictional High Court that this issue has been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts and the details of all the judgements

In light of various judgements of the Hon’ble High Courts, including the judgement of the juri ictional High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer [2024] 156

Thus, it is clear that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court in the assessee’s own case for the A.Y.2016-17. As regards the contention of the Ld.DR that no such issue was raised by the assessee before the authorities below, we find from the Grounds of Appeal raised before the CIT(A) that the assessee had raised this issue in ground No.2 to 5 as under :

In view of the facts emanating from the record, we find that the assessee has duly raised this issue before the CIT(A) and therefore, the contention raised by the Ld.DR is devoid of any merit. Accordingly, the show cause notice issued u/s 148A(b) dated 21.02.2023 as well as notice issued u/s 148 dated 30.03.2023 by the JAO are not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 16. However, since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Hon’ble High Court has also given the liberty to the parties to move an appropriate petition, seeking revival of W.P. in light of judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court on this very issue, we also grant liberty to the parties to get this appeal revived, if, in case the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitate to modify this order.

1. In the case in hand it is not disputed that the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued by the JAO and not by the Faceless Assessing Officer. By following the judgment of Hon’ble juri ictional High Court in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah dated 24.04.2025 in Writ Petition No.344 of 2025 as well as the decision of co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that the notice issued u/s. 148A(b) of the 27 ITA.No.1697/Hyd./2025

4. Thus, it is clear that the Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court for the State of Telangana has taken a consistent view that the notice u/sec.148 of the Act by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer is not valid and liable to be set-aside/quashed. We, therefore, by respectfully following the Judgment of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court for the State of Telangana as well as the decisions of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that, the notice issued by the Juri ictional Assessing Officer u/sec.148A(b) dated 03.03.2023 as well as notice issued u/sec.148 dated 23.03.2023 are not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly.

Further, since the issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Department in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., against the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the Order of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar in WP.No.344 of 2025, dated 24.04.2025

Since we have quashed the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act and consequently, vitiates the re- assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, we do not propose to adjudicate the other grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on the merits of the additions.”

Respectfully following the Judgment of Hon’ble Juri ictional High Court as relied upon by this Tribunal in the earlier Order (supra) as well as to maintain rule of consistency, we decide this issue in favour of the assessee by holding that the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act by the JAO without following the procedure provided under National Faceless Assessment Scheme is invalid and liable to be quashed. We Order accordingly.

Since the matter is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., therefore, the parties are at liberty to get this appeal revived as per the outcome of the SLP on the same issue pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Since, we have quashed the notice issued u/sec.148 of the Act, it also vitiates the re-assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer, therefore, we do not propose to other grounds which are also not pressed by the learned Authorised Representative of the Assessee at this stage and prayed for keeping the same open, if need arises. Hence, the other issues raised by the assessee are kept open.

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 19th day of December, 2025. [MANJUNATHA G.]

Somineni Vijayalakshmi, Flat No.305, Shivam Block, Jeedimetla, Qutbullapur, Hyderabad. PIN – 500 055. Telangana.

The Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(1), Sy.No.6(P) of Kondapur, Sy.No.37(P) of Kothaguda, Opp. Botanical Gardens, Hyderabad – 500 084. Telangana 3. The Pr. CIT, Hyderabad. 4. The DR, ITAT, “B” Bench, Hyderabad. 5. Guard file.