“faceless assessment”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B2,420 judgments

The decision most relied on for faceless assessment is Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO (156 Taxmann.com 178), cited in 213 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on faceless assessment

Kankanala Ravindra Reddy v. ITO

156 Taxmann.com 178 · 2023 · High Court

213

citing judgments

A notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act is invalid if the Income Tax Department fails to follow the prescribed procedures, including obtaining the necessary approvals under section 151 or adhering to the faceless assessment scheme mandates under section 151A.

Jatinder Singh Bhangu v. Union of India

165 Taxmann.com 115 · 2024 · High Court

106

citing judgments

The faceless assessment scheme under Section 151A applies from the stage of issuing show cause notices under Sections 148 and 148A, and non-compliance with the scheme or related notifications vitiates the subsequent assessment proceedings. Assessment proceedings are considered to commence upon the issuance of such a show cause notice.

Ram Narayan Sah v. Union of India

163 Taxmann.com 478 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under section 148 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, cannot be issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer after the introduction of faceless assessment under Section 151A read with Section 144B. Such a notice is invalid as it defeats the object of faceless assessment and is not in consonance with CBDT notifications.

T.K.S. Builders (P) Ltd. v. ITO

469 ITR 657 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Section 144B of the Income Tax Act does not completely divest the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) of their power to assess or reassess, even with the introduction of the Faceless Reassessment Scheme.

Triton Overseas (P) Ltd. v. Union of India

156 Taxmann.com 318 · 2023 · High Court

citing judgments

A notice under Section 148 for income escaping assessment issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is invalid if it does not comply with Section 151A and relevant CBDT notifications concerning faceless assessment.

Pvt. Ltd. v. DCIT

466 ITR 474 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

Reassessment notices under Section 148A, issued in the context of faceless assessment proceedings, must be issued by the designated Faceless Assessing Officer and not by a Jurisdictional Assessing Officer.

Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras

169 Taxmann.com 542 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) does not have the power to issue notices under Section 148 or 148A of the Income Tax Act. Its jurisdiction for assessment or reassessment begins only from the stage of issuing notices under Section 142(1) or 143(2).

Samp Furniture (P) Ltd. v. ITO

165 Taxmann.com 581 · 2024 · High Court

citing judgments

The issuance of a notice under section 148A, including the order under section 148A(d), is a mandatory procedural step before reassessment proceedings can be initiated under section 147/148. Failure to comply with this requirement renders the subsequent reassessment proceedings invalid.

Judgments citing faceless assessment

Arun Mathur, Bharatpur vs. ITO Ward-1, Bharatpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 532/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur01 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 250

assessment order, thus, the impugned order was passed without following the principles of natural justice and in gross violation of the scheme of faceless assessment. 4. That having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, the Id. AO has erred in law and on facts that the reasons

Cadmatic Oy, Mumbai vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Int Tax), Circle-2(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 540/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra SinghFor Respondent: Shri Anil Sant

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 195

rulings of Hon'ble ITAT and High Courts in several cases. Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of SRF Ltd. v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [2021] 129 taxmann.com 174 (Delhi) has held that where objections to draft assessment order filed by assessee were pending disposal with

Laxmi Kant Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 964/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the end of the relevant

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271F

Nos.963 & 964/Del/2023 Laxmi Kant Mishra vs. ITO ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048730661(1) dated 16/01/2023 against the penalty orders passed by Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Ld. AO’) u/ss. 271F & 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Laxmi Kant Mishra, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 35(5), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 963/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: the end of the relevant

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 271F

Shri Manoj Dhanjibhai Pansuriya, Rajkot vs. The NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 47/RJT/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot20 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Hri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Kalpesh Doshi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar Pandey, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 147rSection 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Ahmedabad) BEFORE HRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SIDDHARTHA NAUTIYAL, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.47/Rjt/2023 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) Shri Manoj Dhanjibhai Pansuriya, Vs. National Faceless Assessment Kalpesh S. Doshi & Co., Centre, Chartered Accountants, Delhi 1006-09, The Spire 2, Nr. Sheetal Park BRTS Stop, 150 ft. Ring Road, Rajkot

Farman Khan, Chaksu vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward 7(3), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 590/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 269Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

disclosed in the relevant Return for A.Y. 2018-19. This Return of Income was reassessed u/s 147 /144B vide order dated 27.03.2023, by the Faceless Assessing officer (FAO) at the Returned Income itself.In other words, all transactionswere found disclosed and the explanations were accepted, and so no unaccounted income /Black ... consider the specific request for Video Conferencing made by the assesseevide his submission.This is in violation of the scheme for faceless assessments / faceless appeal and the Principles of Natural Justice itself and makes the order of the CIT(A) invalid and liable to be quashed. Prayer :- Thus

Boeing India Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

ITA 802/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA (Accountant Member), SHRI CHALLA NAGENDRA PRASAD (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 139Section 143Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 234ASection 92

facts, in circumstances of the case & in law, the final assessment order passed by Ld. Assessing Officer (‘Ld.AO') of the National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NaFAC') under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Income

Ghevarchand M. Surana, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Thane

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2641/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sshrighevarchand.M.Surana Vs Ito-Ward-2(4), 203, B-3, Sector-4, Ashar It Park, Mira Road (E), 6Th Floor, Road No. Thane-401107, 16Z, Wagle Maharashtra. Industrial Estate, Thane-400604. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aajps6676B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Shashank Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Joginder Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

following grounds of appeal: Ghevarchand M Surana, Mumbai. 1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre - CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Ld. Assessing Officer of completing the assessment u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 without providing ... Commissioner of Central Excise (Civil Appeal No. 4228 of 2006). 2 In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the LdNational Faceless Assessment Centre - CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action Ld. assessing officer of disallowing the purchases of Rs. 12,31,117/- by arbitrarily ignoring

Jitendra Udaylal Jain, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2042/MUM/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blejitendra Udaylal Jain V. National Faceless Assessment Centre(Nfac) C/O. M/S. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 Pan: Aabpj5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented By : Shri. Vimal Punmiya Department Represented By : Shri. Ujjawal Kumar Chavan

Section 10(38)Section 131Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jitendra Udaylal Jain v. National Faceless Assessment Centre(NFAC) C/o. M/s. Alankar Jewellers Shop Delhi No.1 Municipal Building R.A. Kidwai Road, Wadala Mumbai- 400037 PAN: AABPJ5480E (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri

Hitachi Astemo Haryana Private Limited (Formerly Showa India Private Limited), Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1005/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandrahitachi Astemo Haryana Private Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle 22 (2), (Formerly Showa India Private Ltd.), Delhi. Plot No.23-32, Sector 58, Behind Jcb India Ltd., Faridabad – 121 002 (Haryana). (Pan : Aabce5725G) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Akshay Uppal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar, Cit Dr Shri Manu Chaurasia, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 16.10.2023 Date Of Order : 23.11.2023

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 144C(8)Section 270ASection 92C

Private Limited) (hereinafter referred to as 'Hitachi Astemo or 'Appellant') craves leave to prefer an appeal against 2 the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "NFAC" or "AO"] pursuant to directions issued by the Hon'ble Dispute Resolution Panel [hereinafter referred

Barbrik Dee Vee Jv, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Raipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 313/RPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 313/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Barbarik Dee Vee Jv A-24, Ashoka Millenium, Ring Road No.1, Rajendra Nagar, Raipur (C.G.)-492 001 Pan : Aacab7461R .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 201Section 36(1)(iii)Section 37(1)

being heard is provided to the appellant for making submission against the proposed disallowance as per the directions issued by the CBDT for faceless assessment in notification No.61/2019 dated 12.01.2019. 2. That CIT(Appeals)-NFAC has erred in both fact and in law in confirming the disallowance of expenditure made

Sourabh Sharma, Jaipur vs. PCIT, Jaipur-2, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 240/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Nov 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar (CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 263

reason being the lack of 21 Sourabh Sharma vs. PCIT transparency was one of the major criteria which made the Central Government to introduce Faceless Assessment Scheme and hence the same has been also the undeclared reason then of invoking S 263 in the deserving cases. However, undisputedly this being ... Faceless Assessment the issue of transparency is not at all involved therefore such undeclared reason of invoking S. 263 could not be a consideration and certainly not made a basis but then this aspect must weigh heavily in favor of the assessee. 12. No TDS required: It is clarified that

Van Ooord India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT Cir 5(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1686/MUM/2021[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Nov 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2015-16 Van Oord India Pvt Ltd Acit Circle 5(3)(2) 201, 2Nd Floor, Central Aaykar Bhavan, Mk Road, Vs. Plaza, 166 Cst Road, Mumbai- 400020 Kalina, Mumbai- 400098

For Appellant: Shri. Divesh ChawlaFor Respondent: Shri. Ajay Kumar Sharma & Anil Sant

Section 250

hereinafter referred to as the Appellant) craves leave to prefer an appeal against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (National Faceless Assessment Center) (hereinafter referred to as CIT-A) under section 250 of the Income-tax Act1961 (hereinafter Van Oord India Pvt Ltd 2 referred

Bsc C&C Joint Venture, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-61(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2283/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Tarandeep Singh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, CIT(DR)

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 40Section 801A(4)(i)Section 80I

assessee has not submitted supporting evidences in this regard without appreciating the fact that complete documents and explanations were submitted by the appellant during faceless assessment of the case and also before Hon'ble DRP, Delhi-1. 5. That on the facts and in law the AO has erred ... account of interest on advance given to BSC C&C JV Nepal Ltd. The Ld. Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (“FAO”) 3 proceeded to frame draft order under section 144C of the Act. He computed the total income of the assessee

Sri Harikuttan T, Kayamkulam vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Alleppey

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 885/COCH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Accountantmemberand Shri Manomohan Das, Judicialmember Harikuttan T. The Income Tax Officer (2) 1, Edayilaveetil Tharayil Aayakar Bhavan Njakkanal P.O., Pathiyoor Vs. Alappuzha Co0Llectorate Kayalmulam 690533 Alappuzha 688011 [Pan:Alrpt7536J] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, Ca Respondent By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing:08.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement:03.11.2023 O R D E R Per Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By Assessee Challenging The Confirmation Of Penalty Levied Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18 Vide Order Dated 17/02/2022, By The First Appellate Authority, Being The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Nfac [Cit(A)] Vide It’S Order Dated 06.07.2022. 2.1 The Brief Background Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee, A Retired Defence Personnel, Is A Registered Money Lender Under The Kerala Money Lenders Act (Kml Act), Lending Money On Interest Against Mortgage Of Loan. For The Relevant Year He Returned, Besides Pension, Income From This Business At Rs.2,05,691. On Verification, It Was Found By The Assessing Officer (Ao) That The Assessee Was Maintaining Six Bank Accounts, I.E., Three Each With Two Banks, Being South Indian Bank (Sib) & State Bank Of India (Sbi). Transactions With The Former Were Undisclosed. The Reason Explained Was That The Gold Pawned By His Customers With Him For Availing Loan, Was In Turn Mortgaged With This Bank To Source Funds For Further Lending. These

For Appellant: Shri M.S. Venkitachalam, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 148Section 270ASection 274Section 37(1)

assessment order, making the reliance on the said decision misplaced, both on facts and in law. (ii) In Ultimate Infratech (P) Ltd. vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2022] 213 DTR 249 (Del), the question was whether the assessee could be denied immunity u/s. 270AA

Premilaba Ramde vs. Inh Jadeja, Rajkotvs.the ITO, Ward-2 (1) (1), Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 34/RJT/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Oct 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(b)Section 69A

served on the assessee, fixing the case for hearing on 06-12-2019, but there was no response from the assessee. During the faceless assessment proceedings the assessee filed her reply in ITBA Portal and follows: “… 1. "In this case the AR of the assessee Sh. PM Parmar appeared before

Supreme Buildestates Pvt Ltd, Madanganj- Kishangarh vs. DCIT Circle 2 Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 495/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Agarwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Sh. Anup Singh (Addl. CIT) a

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 2Section 234BSection 37Section 80Section 80G

through ITBA and duly served upon the assessee company on the registered e mail on E-filing portal. Subsequently, the case was transferred to faceless assessment scheme and notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 25.10.2021 and 13.12.2021. In response, the assessee company furnished the required submission from time

Siemens Technology and Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC/ DCIT 8(2) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 588/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Oct 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla () & Ms. Padmavathy S. ()

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(13)Section 153Section 153(1)Section 92C

BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND MS. PADMAVATHY S. (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) I.T.A. No.588/Mum/2022A (Assessment year : 2017-18) Siemens Technology and Services vs National Faceless Assessment Centre Pvt Ltd, Plot No.2, Kharghar Node / Deputy Commissioner of Income- Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 410 tax 8(2)(1), Mumbai, Room No.624, 6th Floor ... pronouncement 27/10/2023 O R D E R Per Padmavathy S (AM): This appeal is against the final order of assessment passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (in short, the AO‟) under section 143(3) read with section 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act (in short, „the Act‟) dated

Greenwoods Govt. Officers Welfare Society, Noida vs. DCIT Circle 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 609/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri S.D. Srivastava, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 270A

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A)”) whereby he sustained the penalty of Rs. 58,88,954/- imposed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (“AO”) upon the assessee under section 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) pertaining to Assessment year

Delhi Policy Group (Reg), New Delhi vs. ITO(E), Ward 1(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 191/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Oct 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyay, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 28Section 34

following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the order dated 28.11.2022 passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ("Act") by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ("Ld. CIT(A)"), upholding the addition of Rs. 54,03,420 by an order u/s 154 of the Act and the resultant demand