ANKITJAIN,HYDERABAD vs. ACIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE-1(2), HYDERABAD.

ITA 913/HYD/2025Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 December 2025AY 2018-1928 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal allowed the assessee's appeal on the legal ground concerning the validity of the notice issued under Section 148. The Tribunal noted that the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) after the effective date of CBDT Notification No. 18/2022, which mandated that all notices under Section 148 must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on the judgment of the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in Kotha Kanthaiah (supra) and its own prior decisions, the Tribunal held that such a notice issued by the JAO was not valid and was liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) was set aside, and the impugned assessment order was quashed. The Tribunal also noted that the issue was pending before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., and granted liberty to the parties to get the appeal revived if the Supreme Court's judgment necessitated a modification. As the appeal was allowed on a legal ground, other grounds were not adjudicated.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Shri Ankit Jain, filed an appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Hyderabad Bench, challenging the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad, dated 29.03.2025, for Assessment Year 2018-19. The appeal stemmed from an order passed by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 01.03.2023, which had dismissed the assessee's appeal. The core of the dispute involved an addition of Rs.36,34,707/- made by the AO as unexplained cash credit under Section 69, later brought to tax under Section 115BBE. The assessee had also raised additional grounds concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the addition of Rs.36,34,707/- as unexplained cash credit under Section 69, confirmed by the Ld. CIT(A), is justified, particularly when based solely on a pen drive and statements of employees of a third party, without independent corroborative evidence, and whether Section 292C applies when seized documents were not in the assessee's possession or control. 2. Whether the reassessment proceedings under Section 147, initiated by a notice under Section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of a Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) as mandated by CBDT Notification No. 18/2022, are bad in law. Assessee's Arguments: The assessee contended that the addition was based on weak evidence and that the reassessment proceedings were invalid because the notice under Section 148 and the order under Section 148A(d) were issued by the JAO, contrary to the faceless assessment scheme. They relied on the Hon'ble Supreme Court's decision in NTPV vs. CIT and the Telangana High Court's ruling in Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. ITO. The assessee argued that the JAO lacked inherent jurisdiction, distinguishing it from territorial or administrative jurisdiction under Section 120(3). Revenue's Arguments: The Revenue argued that the assessee failed to challenge the JAO's jurisdiction within the period prescribed under Section 124(3) of the Act and was therefore barred from raising this objection for the first time before the Tribunal. They relied on the Supreme Court's decision in DCIT vs. Kalinga Institute of Industrial Technology.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 69,Section 115BBE,Section 147,Section 148,Section 148A,Section 292C,Section 124(3),Section 120(3),Section 151A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC‘ Bench, Hyderabad

Before: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Respondent: Shri V. Ravish Bhatt, Sr.DR

Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.:

This appeal is filed by Shri Ankit Jain (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-11, Hyderabad (“Ld.

CIT(A)”) dated 29.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:

ITA No 913 of 2025 Ankit Jain Hyderabad

1.

The Learned First Appellate Authority, is not justified in conforming addition of Rs.36,34,707/- as unexplained cash credit u/s.69 made by the Ld. Assessing Officer.

2.

The Lea

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 69

All 9,011 judgments and leading authorities on Section 69 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →