“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

Ravi Gopal Trivedy, Mumbai vs. National-Eassessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 358/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 May 2023AY 2014-2015

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

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68

Centre (NFAC) has erred in confirming the 2 ITA 358/Mum/2023 Ravi Gopal Trivedy issue of the reassessment notice and order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 1.1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC has erred in confirming the notice under ... NFAC has erred in making an addition of Rs. 17,40,120/- without providing the details of the said amount arrived by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3 ITA 358/Mum/2023 Ravi Gopal Trivedy 2.4. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law the Ld. NFAC

Sulzer Pumps India P. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. Addl./Jt/Dy/ Asstt/ ITO, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 810/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 May 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Hon’Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. Addl./Joint/Dy./Acit/Ito Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha National E-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/S. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd V. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, Midc, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 Pan: Aaack2238F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 144C(5)Section 37(1)Section 40

Digha National e-Assessment Centre Delhi Thane-Belapur Road, Navi Mumbai- 400708 PAN: AAACK2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) M/s. Sulzer Pumps India Pvt Ltd v. National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi Plot No. 9, MIDC, Digha Thane-Belapur Road Navi Mumbai- 400708 PAN: AAACK2238F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee Represented by : Shri S Sriram

Shri Rajeshkumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 586/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Ms. Padmavathy S, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.586 & 585/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Rajesh Kumar C National Faceless Assessment Centre. Jain. Nfac, New Delhi - 110002 बिधम/ R C Metal Corporation, Shop No.8, 289, Shri Vs. Bhuvan, 4Th Khetwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan No. Aacpj7705P (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) : अपीलाथीकीओरसे/ Appellant By : Rajesh Kumar C Jain प्रत्यथीकीओरसे/Respondent By : Mahita Nair Sr. Ar सुनवाईकीतारीख/ : 03.05.2023 Date Of Hearing घोषणाकीतारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 10.05.2023

For Appellant: Rajesh Kumar C JainFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR

Section 271(1)(c)

SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JM & MS. PADMAVATHY S, AM आयकरअपीलसं./ I.T.A. No.586 & 585/Mum/2023 (निर्धारणवर्ा / Assessment Year 2009-10 & 2010-11) Shri Rajesh Kumar C National Faceless Assessment Centre. Jain. NFAC, New Delhi - 110002 बिधम/ R C Metal Corporation, Shop No.8, 289, Shri Vs. Bhuvan, 4th Khetwadi, Mumbai- 400 004 स्थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं

Shri Rajeshkumar C Jain, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 585/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 May 2023AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: Rajesh Kumar C JainFor Respondent: Mahita Nair Sr. AR

Section 271(1)(c)

Jansevak Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 639/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2014-15

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

brevity) inter-alia that:- “Being aggrieved by the order dated 27.01.2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ("Act"), your appellant prefers this appeal, among others, on the following

Jansevak Co-Op Credit Society Ltd, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 27(1)(5), Mumbai

ITA 638/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 May 2023AY 2015-16

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Rajesh Kumar Agarwal, Jaipur vs. DCIT 1, C.R. Building, Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 126/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur03 May 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing Of Appeal.” 3. Succinctly, The Fact As Culled Out From The Records Is That The Return Of Income In This Case Was E-Filed On 29.11.2012 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.

For Appellant: Smt. Suhani Meharwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

which in turn arise from the order dated 07.01.2022 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi(NeFAC). 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - 2 Rajesh Kumar Agarwal vs. DCIT “1. Ground 1: On the facts

Dy Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Nela Trust, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2966/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 May 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Bledcit (Exemption) – 2(1) V. Neia Trust Room No. 608, 6Th Floor C/O. Ecgc Of India Mtnl Building, Cumballa Hill 10Th Floor, Express Tower Mumbai - 400026 Nariman Point Mumbai – 400021 Pan: Aaatn9999F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 2(15)

assessee trusts is high". Subsequently, notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act are issued and served on the assessee by National Faceless Assessment Centre through ITBA Portal. 3. Further, Assessing Officer observed that the past history of the assessee shows that in the earlier assessment years, proviso

Aryavansh Land Infratech Pvt. Ltd., Raipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Raipur-1, Raipur

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 107/RPR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur02 May 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 107/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Aryavansh Land Infratech Private Limited Hotel Ishika, Station Road Raipur (C.G.)-492001 Pan : Aalca0004G .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Pr. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Raipur-1 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K.Meena, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 263

144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 30.03.2022 passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi because the order u/s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 3 was passed in pursuance of order u/s 263 dated

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2815/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

facts and in circumstances of the case and in law, the appellant company submits that the draft assessment order was passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC'), however the impugned assessment order is passed by the jurisdictional Ld. AO. 2.2 Based on the facts and in circumstances

Teleperformance Global Services Pvt Ltd (M/S Serco Bpo Pvt. Ltd )., Mumbai vs. DCIT 5(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly 15. In result the appeal of both AY 2017-18 and AY 2018-19 is allowed

ITA 2814/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Apr 2023AY 2017-18

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

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144C

Kalpana Jhala, Jaipur vs. ITO, WD 5(4), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 414/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Mahendra Gargieya (Adv.) &For Respondent: Sh. Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 127Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

order dated 15.02.2022 passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2 Kalpana Jhala vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The impugned penalty order ... requiring the assessee to explain as to why penalty should not be levied for non- compliance. 3. Later, after the introduction of Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019, this case was assigned to ReFAC Unit. The show cause notices dated 30/8/2021 and 9/2/2022 were issued to the assessee to respond

Pooja Upadhyay, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 5(1), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 258/JPR/2022[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur17 Apr 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Devang Gargieya (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Chanchal Meena (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

order dated 21.01.2020 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2 Pooja Upadhyay vs. ITO, Ward 5(1), Jaipur 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The impugned penalty

Rasulpur Co-Opeartive Agriculture Service Society Limited, Ludhiana vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax -1, Ludhiana

Accordingly, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as

ITA 18/ASR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar12 Apr 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 263

appeal was filed against order of the Ld. Pr. CIT u/s 263 setting aside the assessment which has now been reframed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi vide their order dated 31.03.2022 as per copy of the same being enclosed for ready reference. It is accordingly prayed that appeal

M/S Rajendra Agri Products P Ltd, Indore vs. DCIT (TDS), Bangaluru

In the result, appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 121/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Apr 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanirajendra Agri Product P. Dcit Ltd. Cpc Banglore Vs. 302, Royal House,11/13 Usha Ganj Indore (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Aabcr 3053 L Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.04.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 11.04.2023

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 192BSection 194CSection 40Section 43B

same AY 18-19, passed by Learned Addl. Commissioner National Page 1 of 5 Rajendra Agri Products P. Ltd. Page 2 of 5 Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, wherein he has assessed the Taxable income of the assessee for the same year at Rs.40,45,453 and has deleted the additions ... assessee was subsequently, selected for scrutiny and Ld. AO has already passed scrutiny assessment order u/s 143(3) on 24.02.2021 by National Faceless Assessment Centre. A copy of the assessment order has been filed by the Ld. AR of the assesse. Considering the facts that the case of the assessee

Anshu Sharma, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(3), Jaipur

In the result, impugned order is set-aside and appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 73/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: 30.08.2019. But No Reply Was Filed By The Assessee On The Said Date Of Hearing. Thereafter, One More Opportunity Was Granted To The Assessee Vide This Office Notice U/S 142(1) Dated 01.10.2019 To File Reply On 11.10.2019, But Again No Compliance Was Made By The Assessee.

For Appellant: Sh. Praveen Saraswat (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 129Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

this period, therefore, was not having any staff to operate computer or check mails on daily basis. 4. The Department was gradually moving towards faceless assessment /e- assessment and hence, stopped physical serving notices to the asessees in the year 2019. This being the first year of online interface

J C Antiques and Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 416/JPR/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Apr 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Manish Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 44A

order dated 07.07.2021 passed under section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ here in after to as Act ] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 2 J C Antiques & Crafts, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-07, Jaipur 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds ... various decision cited ld.AO levied the penalty for a sum of Rs. 2,38,214/-. 5. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred and appeal before the ld. CIT(A). A propose to the grounds so raised the relevant finding

Inter Globle Aviation Ltd, Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-10(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2539/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Mar 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Anil Chaturvedi & Sh. Narender Kumar Choudhryinter Globle Aviation Ltd. Vs. Acit Upper Ground Floor, Circle – 10(1) Westren Wing, Thapper New Delhi House-124, Janpath, New Delhi-110001 Pan No. Aabci 2726 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Rohit Jain, Adv. Ms. Soumya Jain, Adv. Revenue By Shri Anuj Garg, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22.02.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 22.03.2023 Order Per Anil Chaturvedi, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.09.2022 Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) - Delhi Relating To Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case As Culled Out From The Material On Record Are As Under :- Inter Globle Aviation Ltd Vs Acit 2 3. Assessee Is A Company Stated To Be Engaged In The Business Of Operation Of Airlines Under The Name & Style Of Indigo. Assessee Electronically Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2018-19 On 30.11.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.18,26,11,80,910/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & Thereafter Assessment Was Framed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act Vide Order Dated 19.04.2021 & The Total Income Was Determined At Rs.24,31,89,53,536/-.

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 271D

case and in law, the CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 19.04.2021, having been passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (herein under referred to as 'assessing officer"/"NaFAC) without following the mandatory procedure prescribed under section 144B of the Act was illegal

Smt. Rajinder Kaur, Hoshiarpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Dasuya

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar22 Mar 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Sh. Surinder Mahajan, CAFor Respondent: Sh. S. R. Kaushik, CIT-DR

Section 1Section 143(3)Section 148Section 263

have been initiated since assessment order u/s 144 r.w.s. 263 of the Act has been made by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) vide order dated 28.03.2022. Assessee was further informed that appeal against assessment order is required to be filed and assessee is also entitled to question the order

Atulkumar Babulal Modi, Bharuch vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bharuch

In the result, this appeal of this assessee is dismissed

ITA 89/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Mar 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Atulkumar Babulal Modi, I.T.O., A-61, Link Complex, Link Road, Ward 1(2), Vs. Bharuch-392001. Bharuch. Pan No. Acwpm 4256 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 50C

notice. 3. It was submitted before AO that appellant was new to the e-proceedings and therefore could not understand the proceedings of faceless assessment. The appellant has thereafter took the assistant of her authorised representative and accordingly made the submission. Therefore, the AO has ignored this Atulkumar Babulal Modi