← All Phrases

“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
97
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
88
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
55
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
53
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
50
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
50
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

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar vs. Meghana Enterprises, Mahabubnagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 481/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.481/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year 2018-2019) The Income Tax Officer, Meghana Enterprises, Ward-1, Mahabubnagar Vs. Mahabubnagar. Pin – 509 102 Pan Abefm1414B Pin - 509001. (Appellant) (Respondent) राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. Ar िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: Sri Kr Pruthvish, Advocate

For Appellant: Sri KR Pruthvish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Rakesh Chintagumpula, Sr. AR
Section 130Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 194C

Jurisdictional Officer (JAO) and the notices issued under Section 148 by the JAO, given that the Finance Act, 2021 introduced provisions for faceless assessment and the automated allocation of cases, and does not explicitly prohibit the JAO from issuing such notices. 2. The Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing ... consistent with the legislative intent when the powers to issue the notice u/s 148 remained with intact with the JAO even after bringing the Faceless Assessment Scheme. 3. The Learned CIT(A) erred in quashing the notice u/s 148 issued by the JAO when both the JAO as well

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1385/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

quashed. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as mandated under Section 13 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure to adhere ... statutory faceless assessment scheme renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in failing to appreciate that government bodies, by virtue of their statutory status, are automatically eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1384/HYD/2025[20216-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

quashed. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as mandated under Section 13 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure to adhere ... statutory faceless assessment scheme renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in failing to appreciate that government bodies, by virtue of their statutory status, are automatically eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1383/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

quashed. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as mandated under Section 13 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure to adhere ... statutory faceless assessment scheme renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in failing to appreciate that government bodies, by virtue of their statutory status, are automatically eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1382/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

quashed. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as mandated under Section 13 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure to adhere ... statutory faceless assessment scheme renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in failing to appreciate that government bodies, by virtue of their statutory status, are automatically eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income

Ujjaini Mahakali Devathanam, Secunderbad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1381/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

quashed. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as mandated under Section 13 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure to adhere ... statutory faceless assessment scheme renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in failing to appreciate that government bodies, by virtue of their statutory status, are automatically eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income

Ujjaini Mahakali Devasthanam, Secunderabad vs. ITO., Exemption Ward-1(3), Hyderabad

In the result, all the six appeals of the Assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1380/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha Gआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.1382 & 1384/Hyd./2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Years 2015-2016 & 2016-2017

For Appellant: Sri KVSSN Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 10Section 147Section 15(1)Section 271BSection 6

quashed. 2. The Learned Appellate Authority failed to appreciate that the assessment order was passed by the jurisdictional officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), as mandated under Section 13 ITA.Nos.1380 to 1385/Hyd./2025 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The failure to adhere ... statutory faceless assessment scheme renders the assessment order without jurisdiction, illegal, and void ab initio. 3. The Learned Appellate Authority erred in failing to appreciate that government bodies, by virtue of their statutory status, are automatically eligible for exemption under Section 10(23BBA) of the Income

Van Bros Construction Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 2381/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri M Balaganeshआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.2381/Del/2025 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2019-20 बनाम Van Bros Construction Pvt. Ltd., Assessment Unit B-113, Lajpat Nagar-1, Vs. Income Tax Department, New Delhi. National Faceless Appeal, Pan No.Aaacv1092J Delhi. अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 234ASection 234BSection 234D

objection of the assessee that notice u/s 148 dated 13.04.2023 has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and not by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). 9. That the AO’s order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates ... objection of the assessee that notice u/s 148 dated 13.04.2023 has been issued by the jurisdictional assessing officer (JAO) and not by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). 9. That the AU's order is contrary to the law and the facts of the case in so far it relates

Pawan Kumar Sharma, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5952/DEL/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Pawan Kumar Sharma, Vs. Income Tax Officer, E-41, Beta-1, Greater Noida, Income Tax Departmemt. Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Pan: Abrps9989C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Neeraj Mangla, CA & PraveenFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR
Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 68

VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal filed by assessee is against order dated 30.10.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising

Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Karmchari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mandsaur vs. PCIT Indore-1, Indore

In the result, we reject condonation request of assessee and consequently this appeal filed

ITA 857/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Pr. Cit-1, बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Indore Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 263Section 270A(2)Section 80P

PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 07.08.2021 passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds

Madhya Pradesh Vidyut Mandal Karmchari Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Mandsaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Mandsaur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 833/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshimadhya Pradesh Vidyut Ito, Mandsaur बनाम/ Mandal Karmchari Vs. Paraspar Sahakari Sanstha Maryadit, Shop No.5 Nahar Sayyad Road, Kityani Mandsaur (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaaam6716A Assessee By Shri Ashok Ratnawat, Ar Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 10.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 11.11.2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 270A(2)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 07.08.2021 passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2018-19, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds: Page

Lal Chand Meena, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(2), Jaipur

ITA 1074/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Bhatia, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2Section 50CSection 54F

under section 2 Lal Chand Meena 143(3) r.w.s 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi [ for short AO ]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. On facts and in the circumstances ... thereby the assessment was completed on 25.03.2022 making addition of Rs. 34,25,398/-. 4. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC is reiterated

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Jind vs. Vikas Jain, Jind

In the result, the assessee succeeds in its cross-objection

ITA 838/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh11 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Laliet Kumar, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.838/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Income Tax Officer Shri Vikas Jain बनाम/ Ward 1 Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Vs. Jind-126102. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) & 2. Co No. 28/Chandi/2025 [In Ita No.838/Chandi/2024) Shri Vikas Jain Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Nav Bharat Steel & General Industries Ward 1 Vs. Indira Bazar, Jind-126102. Jind-126102. "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aeqpj-3689-E (Cross Objector) : (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Suresh Gupta (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (Cit) – Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 01-09-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Gupta (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Smt. Tarundeep Kaur (CIT) – Ld. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69C

appeal read as under: - 1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition of Rs.7,67,89,408/- made by the faceless assessment unit on account of bogus purchase made by the assessing of Rs.7,38,35,970/- and commission paid by the assessee at Rs.29 ... taken by the assessee in its cross-objection is that the reassessment proceedings have been initiated by Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO) which would vitiate entire assessment proceedings. The undisputed fact that emerges is that reopening notice u/s 148 (kept on page no.182

Monotech Systems Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corp. Circle-4(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1021/CHNY/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Nov 2025

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. J. Prabhakar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. C.I.T
Section 147Section 234BSection 36Section 37(1)Section 45

nature of expenses claimed at Rs.4,34,44,057/- representing revenue loss. 11. The NFAC failed to take into account that the faceless assessment did not have the benefit of business transfer agreement so as to interpret the impugned transaction as forming part of slump sale without any basis

DCIT Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Canon India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 1038/DEL/2023[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

case for the captioned year was picked up for scrutiny assessment and consequent to appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the National Faceless Assessment Centre had passed an order under section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 254 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order

Ecoenergy Insights Ltd ( Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Systems P.Ltd), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 2321/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharmaecoenergy Insights Ltd., Vs. Dcit, (Formerly Known As Chubb Alba Control Circle 4 (2), Systems P. Ltd.), New Delhi. Ground Floor, 18, Netaji Subhash Marg, Daryaganj, New Delhi – 110 002. (Pan :Aaaca0031C) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nageshwar Rao, Advocate Shri Parth, Advocate Shri Pratik Rath, Advocate Revenue By : Shri S.K. Jadhav, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 Date Of Order : 10.11.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. This Appeal Preferred By The Assessees Is Directed Against The Assessment Order Dated 25.07.2022Passed By The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department Under Section 147 Read With Section 144C(13) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act”) For Ay 2018-19 Pursuant To The Directions Of The Dispute Resolution Panel U/S 144C(5) Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT DR
Section 143(2)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 147Section 92C

final assessment order is invalid as the same has been passed and served upon the appellant by the AU instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), in violation of statutory procedure under Section 144B(1) and Section 144B(5) of the Act. Thus, the assessment proceedings are vitiated ... mentioned that reference was received from AO- Technical Unit. It is respectfully submitted that under section 144B effective 01.04.2021, National E-assessment Unit/National Faceless Assessment Unit consists of various units. Assessment Unit and Technical Unit are defined and perform roles assigned under the Act. Technical unit is defined to provide

Canon India Pvt. Ltd, Gurugram vs. Neac, Delhi

In the result, to sum up and conclude:

ITA 585/DEL/2021[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Nov 2025AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Vijay B. Basanta, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(3)Section 254Section 92C

case for the captioned year was picked up for scrutiny assessment and consequent to appeal before this Hon'ble Tribunal, the National Faceless Assessment Centre had passed an order under section 143(3) of the Act read with Section 254 of the Act (hereinafter referred to as the impugned order

Pcl Estates Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 14(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4619/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra & Ms. Rupa NandaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, (SR. DR.)
Section 139Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 68

relied on the order of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of Mukeshbhai Babarbhai Desai vs Income Tax Department Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Anr R/Special Civil Application No.11357 of 2023, date of order 26/08/2025 wherein the Hon’ble Gujarat High Court has taken the view ... dated 19.05.2023 as well as the notice dated 28.07.2022 are hereby quashed and set aside and the matter is remanded back to the National Faceless Assessment Authority to comply with the SOP and pass a fresh order after following the due procedure of law. The above exercise should be done

DCIT, Circle 4(2), New Delhi vs. Ms Communique Marketing Solutions Pvt Ltd, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed and cross-objection of Assessee is allowed

ITA 4762/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Deputy Commissioner Of Income Vs. Ms Commmunique Marketing Tax, Circle 4(2), Solutions (P) Ltd., 5407, Arya Samaj New Delhi. Road, Karol Bagh, New Delhi-110005 Pan :Aaccc3432F (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 37Section 68

appeal filed by the Revenue and Cross-Objection by the assessee are against order dated 27.08.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “the Ld. CIT(A)”) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi Jain Sampraday Trust, Ahmedabad vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 409/AHD/2025[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Nov 2025

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.409/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : Na Arhamgachchh Sthanakvasi The Cit (Exemption) बनाम/ Jain Sampraday Trust Vejalpur 380 015 V/S. 1, Paras Chambers, Opp. Sagar Hotel Nr. Ujala Circle, Sarkhej Ahmedabad – 382 210 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aaeta 9012 C (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) ("" यथ"/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kamal Bhambhani, Ar Revenue By : Shri R.P. Rastogi, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 04/11/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Siddhartha Nautiyal, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Dated 24/12/2024 Passed U/S.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Kamal Bhambhani, ARFor Respondent: Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 250

this regard, we derive support from the judgment of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court in Rahim Saib Hiriyur Hyder Ali v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2022] 145 taxmann.com 116 (Karnataka), wherein it was held that granting only two days’ time to the assessee to furnish a reply ... principles of natural justice, thereby rendering the order unsustainable in law. Similarly, the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in Uday Desai HUF v. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2021] 132 taxmann.com 117 (Bombay) held that a notice allowing merely one day to respond could not be considered reasonable opportunity, and consequently