Ali Unjhawala Asgar Vs ITO (ITAT Hyderabad)
Insight Info Triggered Reopening, But Jurisdiction Defect Kills Entire Proceeding-JAO Has No Power Post-29.03.2022—148 Notice by JAO Invalid – ITAT Annuls 147/144B Assessment
Assessee, a partner in M/s TAS Trading Corporation, was issued notice u/s 148A(b) based on Insight/NMS information relating to purchase of immovable property (1/3rd share: Rs.38,50,000/-) & cash deposits of Rs.12,73,700/- in Yes Bank. Assessee was a non-filer. On failure to reply, AO passed order u/s 148A(d) on 08.04.2022 & issued notice u/s 148. Assessment was completed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B on 07.03.2024 making additions of (i) Rs.12,73,700/- unexplained cash deposits u/s 69A r.w.s 115BBE, (ii) Rs.1,74,031/- unexplained credits u/s 69A, (iii) Rs.2,31,066/- unexplained transfer cost u/s 69 r.w.s 115BBE. Assessee’s explanation—cash from past accumulations & payments by the firm—was rejected for lack of evidence.
CIT(A) upheld reopening, jurisdiction & additions, noting that more than 12 opportunities were given & documentary proof was lacking.
Before Tribunal, Assessee raised a pure legal additional ground challenging jurisdiction of ITO Ward-10(1), Hyderabad to issue notice u/s 148 in light of the Telangana High Court rulings in Deloitte Consulting India Pvt. Ltd. & Yashnu Yasavi Polucherla, which hold that after 29.03.2022, only the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) can issue notices u/s 148; JAO has no jurisdiction. Tribunal admitted the additional ground following NTPC (SC).
