ALI UNJHAWALA ASGAR,SECUNDERABAD vs. ITO., WARD-10(1), HYDERABAD
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ SMC ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
PER MANJUNATHA G., A.M :
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless
2
Ali Unjhawala Asgar
Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 26.06.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under :
Defect in reassessment proceeding under section 148A:
1) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO of issuing notice 148A entirely based on information received from NMS module of Insight portal without conducting any inquiry, verifying material on record and application of mind.
2) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has grossly erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the AO by not furnishing a copy of the approval granted by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax
(PCIT) under Section 148A(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, prior to issuance of notice under Section 148. The failure to provide such approval violates the mandatory procedural safeguards prescribed under the Act and breaches the principles of natural justice, rendering the reassessment proceedings bad in law, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed
3) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the approving authority who has granted approval for issuance of the impugned notice under section 148 and order under section 148A(d) of the Act in a mechanical manner without verifying any material to check the facts.
Without prejudice to the above:
Violation of Principle of Natural Justice:
4) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact and in law in passing the order against the principle of natural justice.
5) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts by not providing a proper and adequate opportunity of being heard to the Appellant before passing the impugned order. This is in gross violation of the principles of natural justice, rendering the order bad in law.
6)The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred law in passing the erroneous order by not understating the facts of the matter properly and confirming the action of the AD passing order under section 144 of the Act.
3
Ali Unjhawala Asgar
7) The Ld. Commissioner of income Tax (Appeals) has passed the order without assigning cogent and sufficient reasons for rejecting the legal submissions and contentions raised by the Appellant. The order suffers from non-application of mind and lacks reasoned adjudication on the specific issues raised.
8) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact and in law in passing the order without considering and completely Ignoring the submission documents, and evidence furnished by the Appellant.
9) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact and in law in passing the order and confirming the addition of the AO without giving any reasons of it.
Without prejudice to the above:
Addition u/s 69A
10) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred law in confirming the addition of Rs. 14,47,731 without providing proper opportunity.
11) The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred law in confirming the addition of Rs. 2,31,066 without considering submission dated 13 June 2025 properly.
Other Grounds:
12) Your Appellant craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal any time before or at the time of hearing.
The assessee also raised the additional ground which reads as under : “The Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the JAO issuing notice 148 without having power and juri iction to do so.”
The brief facts of the case are that, as per information available, the assessee, who is an individual and partner in firm
4
Ali Unjhawala Asgar
M/s. TAS Trading Corporation, purchased an immovable property for Rs. 1,15,50,000/-. The assessee’s 1/3rd share in the property came to Rs. 38,50,000/-. The assessee also made cash deposits of Rs. 12,73,700/- in her bank account maintained with Yes Bank.
Since the assessee did not file the return of income for the year under consideration, the sources of investment and cash deposits were unexplained. Accordingly, the A.O. issued a Show Cause
Notice under Section 148A(b) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. As there was no reply from the assessee, the A.O. passed an order under Section 148A(d) on 08.04.2022 and issued notice under Section 148 of the Act. During the course of assessment proceedings, several notices under Sections 142(1) and 143(2) were issued. The assessee did not comply with most of the notices and furnished only partial details on 04.01.2024 and 19.02.2024. Information was also collected from the Sub-