" ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 1 of 27 आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘ DB-B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad श्री विजय पाल राि, उपाध् यक्ष एिं श्री मिुसूदन सािडिया, लेखा सदस् य क े समक्ष । Before Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-President A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdia, Accountant Member आ.अपी.सं /ITA No.45/Hyd/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Ramesh Sistla Hyderabad PAN: AEAPS7184M Vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(1) Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee by: CA Y. V. Bhanu Narayan Rao रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue by: Dr.Narendra Kumar Naik, CIT(DR) सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date of hearing: 07/10/2025 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement: 15/10/2025 आदेश/ORDER Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This appeal is filed by Shri Ramesh Sistla (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 25.10.2024 for the A.Y 2015-16. 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal before this Tribunal. The assessee has filed a petition for Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 2 of 27 condonation of delay along with a copy of the affidavit explaining the reasons for such delay and praying for condonation of the same. After considering the reasons stated by the assessee and upon hearing the submissions of the Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. DR”), we are satisfied that the delay was due to reasonable cause. Accordingly, the delay of 10 days in filing of the appeal is condoned, and the appeal is admitted for adjudication on merits. 3. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the impugned order u/s. 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 passed by the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for the AY 2015-16 is bad in law and on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, weight of evidence and probabilities of the case. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who erred in reopening the assessment on presumptions, surmises and mere suspicion and without following Standard operating procedure (SOP) for the AY 2015- 16, which act of the learned A.O is against the intention of legislature in introducing the provisions of section 147 of the Act. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who did not accept the income as per the return of income filed on 17.05.2022 by the appellant in response to notice u/s. 148 issued on 07.05.2022 for the AY 2015-16. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who erred by making the addition of cash deposits of Rs. 92,75,690/- by treating the same as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act for the AY 2015-16 based on surmises and assumptions. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 3 of 27 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who erred by making the addition of Rs. 12,08,10,000/- by treating the major credits in the bank accounts as unexplained cash credits u/s. 68 of the Act for the AY 2015-16 based on surmises and assumptions, which is against the ratio laid down by the honorable Supreme Court in the case of Parimiseƫ Seetharamamma Vs. CIT reported in 57 ITR 532, wherein it has been held that in all cases in which a receipt is sought to be taxed as income, the burden lies upon the department to prove that it is within the taxing provisions. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned AO as the above addition of Rs. 13,00,85,690/- (Rs. 92,75,690/- u/s. 69A of the Act and Rs. 12,08,10,000/- u/s. 68 of the Act), which is bad in law as the learned A.O. invoked the provisions of section 69A of the Act and section 68 of the Act respectively without considering the fact that the appellant has not maintained any books of accounts and by erroneously treating the bank statements as books of accounts for the AY 2015-16. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi erred in upholding the act of the learned A.O. who erred by invoking provisions of section 115BBE of the Act and levying tax under said section on the addition of Rs. 13,00,85,690/- and further erred by determining the tax payable at Rs. 12,64,58,072/- u/s. 115BBE of the Act inclusive of a total interest of Rs. 8,22,41,946/- (being Rs. 3,58,15,041/- u/s. 234A and Rs. 4,64,26,905/- u/s. 234B) for the AY 2015-16. 8. On technical grounds, the order u/s. 148A(d) of Act for the A.Y. 2015-16 dated 07.04.2022 vide DIN no. ITBA/AST/F/148A/2022-23/1042634427(1) and the consequential notice u/s 148 dated 07.04.2022 vide DIN ITBA/AST/S/148_1/2022- 23/1042641020(1) are passed/issued by the jurisdictional Assessing officer instead of the Faceless A.O. which is contrary to the e-assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, read with CBDT notification no. 18/2022/F.No. 370142/16/2022- TPL dated 29.03.2022 and thus all the proceedings emanating from such invalid notice and order are bad in law and null & void and are liable to be quashed. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 4 of 27 9. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the assessment order passed for the A.Y. 2015-16 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B issued is bad in law and lacks jurisdiction in view of the recent judgement of honorable jurisdictional High Court of Telangana in Writ Petition Nos.25903, 28214, 28271, 32075, 32090, 32688, 33050, 33402, 33478, 34100, 34101, 34340, 34598, 34604, 34661, 34698, 34746, 34836, 35774, 36598, 36828, 36945, 37414, 37491, 37536, 43427, 45047 of 2022, Writ Petition Nos. 15383, 47, 3719, 3721, 3729, 3738, 9695, 11599, 14485, 14492, 15421, 15736, 15745, 15768, 15779, 16164, 16223, 16224, 16761, 16783, 19966, 20914, 20929, 20959 and 23556 of 2023, wherein it has been held that as per the amended provisions w.e.f 1.4.2021 notices u/s 148 can be only given by the officers of the faceless assessment unit and as such the notice u/s 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without Jurisdiction. Hence, the income determined/additions made by the learned A.O. by way of an invalid assessment needs to be deleted and the demand raised also needs to be deleted. 10. The appellant craves leave to add, to amend or modify the above grounds of appeal either before or at the time of hearing of the appeal, if considered necessary.” 4. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who had not filed any return of income under section 139 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”). The Learned Assessing Officer (“Ld. AO”), based on the information available with him, issued a notice under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) to the assessee on 07.04.2022, after passing an order under section 148A(d) of the Act on the same date. In response to the said notice issued under section 148 of the Act, the assessee filed a return of income on 17.05.2022 declaring total income of Rs.8,540/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, the assessee partially complied with the notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act; however, there was no Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 5 of 27 compliance to the show-cause notice issued on 28.11.2023. Consequently, the Ld. AO completed the assessment under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act on 20.12.2023, making additions of Rs.92,75,690/- under section 69A of the Act and Rs.1,20,81,000/- under section 68 of the Act, thereby determining the total income at Rs.13,00,94,230/-. 5. Aggrieved by the assessment order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A). However, since the assessee repeatedly sought adjournments in response to notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A), the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) for non-prosecution. 6. Aggrieved by the dismissal order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has preferred the present appeal before this Tribunal. At the outset, the Ld. AR submitted that the assessee is pressing only single legal ground out of the ground of appeal, i.e. challenging the validity of the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act. He submitted that both the notice and the order were issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (“JAO”) instead of the Faceless Assessing Officer (“FAO”), which is contrary to the scheme of faceless reassessment introduced by the CBDT. 7. The Ld. AR invited our attention to the order under section 148A(d) dated 07.04.2022 and the notice issued under section 148 of the Act on the same date. He demonstrated that both documents clearly bear the name and designation of the JAO. It was submitted that the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 6 of 27 dated 29.03.2022, issued under section 151A(1) and (2) of the Act, mandates that with effect from 29.03.2022, all notices under section 148 of the Act must be issued through the Faceless Assessment Unit. Relying on various decisions of the Coordinate Benches of the Tribunal and Hon’ble High Courts, the Ld. AR argued that when a notice is issued by an authority having no jurisdiction in law, such notice is void ab initio, and all consequential proceedings stand vitiated. He therefore submitted that the notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the consequent assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act are bad in law and liable to be quashed. 8. Per contra, the Ld. DR strongly supported the orders of the lower authorities. He submitted that the legal issue raised by the assessee is pending adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., in the SLP filed by the Revenue against the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay. Therefore, this issue may be kept open till the outcome of the SLP pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 9. We have considered the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We have gone through the order passed under section 148A(d) of the Act, dated 07.04.2022 , which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 7 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 8 of 27 10. On perusal of para no.4 of the above, it is clear that the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued by JAO on 23.03.2022. It is also evident that the order under section 148A(d) Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 9 of 27 of the Act was passed by JAO on 7.4.2022. Further, we have carefully examined the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022, issued in exercise of power conferred under section 151A(1) and (2) of the Act, which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 10 of 27 11. On perusal of para no. 3(b) of the said notification, it is evident that any notice under section 148 of the Act issued on or after 29.03.2022 shall be issued in accordance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme by the FAO. In this regard, we have also gone through the notice issued under section 148 of the Act, which is to the following effect: Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 11 of 27 12. On perusal of the above, it is evident that the notice under section 148 of the Act have been issued by the JAO on 07.04.2022. Hence, on perusal of the order under section 148A(d) of the Act, notice issued under section 148 of the Act and the CBDT notification, we find that in the present case, while the notice under section 148A(b) of the Act was issued before the date of the CBDT notification, the order under section 148A(d) of the Act and the notice under section 148 of the Act was issued on 07.04.2022, i.e., after the said CBDT notification came into effect. However, in terms of the CBDT Notification, the JAO ceased to have authority to issue notice under section 148 of the Act w.e.f. 29.03.2022. It is manifest from the above that the issue of notice under section 148 of the Act as well as the passing of order under section 148A(d) of the Act were conducted by the JAO and not in the Faceless manner as prescribed by the CBDT notification dated 29.03.2022. We note that similar issue has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of ITAT, Hyderabad in the case of Shri Kotha Kanthaiah vs. ITO in ITA.No.1259/Hyd/2024 for the assessment year 2016-17 vide Order dated 04.09.2025 wherein the Tribunal in para nos. 9 to 16 of its order held as under : “9. We have considered the rival submissions as well as material on record. In the case of the assessee, notice u/sec.148A(b) was issued on 21.02.2023 by JAO. For ready reference, the same is reproduced as under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 12 of 27 10. Thereafter, the AO also passed an order u/s 148A(d) on 29.03.2023, wherein, the AO has recorded that, despite Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 13 of 27 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 : 11. 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 Jurisdictional 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 14 of 27 involved in the said petition in para 4 of the said judgement as under : 12. It was further noted by the Hon’ble jurisdictional High Court that this issue has been decided against the Revenue by various High Courts and the details of all the judgements of various High Courts are given in para 5 of the said judgement as under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 15 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 16 of 27 13. In light of various judgements of the Hon’ble High Courts, including the judgement of the jurisdictional High Court in the case of Kankanala Ravindra Reddy Vs. Income Tax Officer [2024] 156 taxmann.com 178 (Telangana), the Hon’ble High Court has held in para 13 to 19 as under : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 17 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 18 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 19 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 20 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 21 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 22 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 23 of 27 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 24 of 27 14. Thus, it is clear that the issue raised by the assessee in the present appeal is now covered by the decision of Hon’ble Jurisdictional 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 : Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 25 of 27 15. 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 Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 26 of 27 the judgement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitate to modify this order”. 13. On perusal of the above, it is clear that the Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana has taken a consistent view that the notice under section 148 of the Act by the JAO is not valid and liable to be set-aside/quashed. In the present case, there is no dispute on the fact that the notice under section 148 of the Act has been issued by the JAO after the date of CBDT notification. Therefore, respectfully following the Judgment of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana as well as the decisions of this Tribunal (supra), we hold that, the notice issued by the JAO under section 148 of the Act, dated 07.04.2022 is not valid and liable to be quashed. We order accordingly. 14. Further, since the issue is pending for adjudication before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the SLP filed by the Revenue in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., against the Judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Bombay and the Order of Hon’ble Jurisdictional High Court for the State of Telangana in the case of Kotha Kanthaiah, Karimnagar in WP.No.344 of 2025, dated 24.04.2025 (supra) has also given the liberty to the parties to move an appropriate petition seeking revival of the petition in light of Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Hexaware Technology Ltd., (supra) on this issue. Therefore, we grant liberty to the parties to get this appeal revived, if the Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court on this issue necessitates to modify this Order. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No 45 of 2025 Ramesh Sistla Page 27 of 27 Accordingly, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our above observation. 15. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th October, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- (VIJAY PAL RAO) VICE PRESIDENT (MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Hyderabad, dated 15th October, 2025 * Reddy gp / Vinodan, sps Copy to: S.No Addresses 1 Shri Ramesh Sistala, 8-2-547/1/2/B F-301 Ideaheaven Apartment, Road No.7 Banjara Hills, Hyderabad 500034 2 Income Tax Officer, Ward 14(1) I.T. Towers, AC Guards, Masab Tank, Hyderabad 500084 3 Pr. CIT - Hyderabad 4 DR, ITAT Hyderabad Benches 5 Guard File By Order Printed from counselvise.com "