SAGAR BOTHRA,HOWRAH vs. NFAC, DELHI
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that the appeal was barred by limitation but condoned the delay as the reasons were bonafide. The primary issue was the invalidity of the assessment framed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre due to lack of jurisdiction. The Tribunal found that the notification for faceless assessment was issued after the assessment order, rendering it null and void.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal was preferred against an order by the National Faceless Appeal Centre. The original assessment was for AY 2013-14, where the AO made an addition of ₹41,25,274/- u/s 68 of the Act. The assessee had sold shares of a penny scrip for ₹41,25,274/-, and a notice u/s 148 was issued after information was received.
What were the issues?
The main issue was whether the assessment framed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre was without jurisdiction and therefore invalid, due to the timing of the notification for faceless assessments.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
Section 143(1),Section 148,Section 142(1),Section 68,Section 151A
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Cases cited in this judgment(4)Show listHide list
Detected automatically from the text. Citations are also linked where they appear in the judgment. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
- Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO213 citing156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · HC
- Triton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India55 citing156 Taxmann.com 318 · 2023 · HC
- Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO50 citing477 ITR 187 · 2024 · HC
- KankanalaRavindra Reddy v. Income-Tax Officer12 citing295 Taxmann 652 · 2023 · HC
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, KOLKATA
This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 20.11.2025 for the AY 2013-14.
At the outset, I note that the appeal of the assessee is barred by limitation by 238 days. At the time of hearing the counsel of the assessee explained the reasons for delay in filing the appeal. The Ld. D.R did not raise any objection in condoning the delay. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the delay is for bonafide and genuine reasons and hence, I condone the delay and admit the appeal for adjudication.
The facts in brief are that the assessee filed the return of income on 23.03.2014, declaring total income at ₹1,51,260/-, which was processed u/s 143(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The case of the assessee was re-opened on the basis of information that the assessee had sold shares of penny scrip, M/s Finalysis Credit and Guarantee Co. Ltd. on Bombay Stock Exchange Platform amounting to ₹41,25,274/-. Notice u/s 148 of the Act was issued on 28.03.2021. in response to the notice, the assessee did not file any return. Accordingly, notice u/s 142(1) along with questionnaire was issued to the assessee. Accordingly to the AO the income to the extent of sale of shares has escaped assessment. The ld. AO made an addition of ₹41,25,274 u/s 68 of the Act, treating the same as unexplained cash credit and assessed total income of the assessee at ₹42,76,534/-.
In the appellate proceedings, the ld. CIT (A) set aside the matter back to the file of the ld. Assessing Officer.
After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, I find that the assessment has been framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre vide order dated 13.03.2022, which in our opinion, is without jurisdiction as the Provisions of Section 151A of the Act which provides for faceless
6.1. Therefore, respectfully following the above decisions , I quash the assessment framed by the AO/ NFAC.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 17.02.2026.
Similar judgments
Other orders that rely on the same authority or decide the same section.
- Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited… vs National Faceless Assessment Centre, DelhiKolkata26 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessment order, framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, was without jurisdiction as it was issued prior to the notification conferring jurisdiction for such faceless assessments. T...
- Mohammad Nazim Ahmad, Nalanda vs ITO, Ward-2(3), BiharshariffPatna26 Feb 2026Allowed
Also relies on Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre was without jurisdiction because the provisions for faceless assessment under Section 151A were notified after the assessment order ...
- Mercy Education Trust, Chennai vs ITO, Ncw-19(6), ChennaiChennai29 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the notice under Section 148 issued by the JAO was invalid as per CBDT notification and jurisdictional High Court rulings. Consequently, the penalty order stemming from this invalid notice was quas...
- Sunita, Sahu vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…Agra21 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for issuing notices under sections 148A and 148 was bad in law and void ab initio. Consequently, the reassessment proceedings were quashed.
- Narayani Rathore, Shivpuri vs Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department…Agra21 Jan 2026Allowed
Also relies on Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO and 2 other authorities
The Tribunal held that the assumption of jurisdiction by the JAO for reopening the assessment was bad in law and void ab initio. The reassessment proceedings were quashed as a result.
More judgments on Section 148
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
- Adj Agri International LLP, Rajkot vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), RajkotITA 1198/RJT/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
Latest GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Ankil Jagdishchandra Kholwadwala vs. Union Of INDIA And AnrBombay · 22 Oct 2026
- Imtiyaz Shaikh Z Chorlekar vs. Salman ShaikhBombay · 21 Oct 2026
- S. Nithyananda vs. State Of KarnatakaKarnataka · 17 Oct 2026
- Venkadeswara Grill Works vs. The Joint Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
- Mufti Clothing And Co vs. The Assistant Commissioner (St)Madras · 16 Oct 2026
