← 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

Manubhai Shamrav Kharat, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2022-23

For Appellant: Shri P D Shah, A.R. &For Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 271BSection 44A

dated 01-06-2023 was issued intimating the assessee that the assessment proceedings in this case has been selected for the purpose of faceless assessment. The assessment was completed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act on 08-03-2024 at total assessed income

Delta Dealers Private Limited, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer Ward No. 13(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2582/KOL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Akshay Ringasia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjib Kumar Paul, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151A

reassessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre is without Se e|2 ITA No. 2582/KOL/2025 Delta Dealers Private Limited; A.Y. 2013-14 jurisdiction, void ab initio and liable to be quashed ... Therefore, we are inclined to admit the same for adjudication. The facts in brief are that in this case the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi has assumed jurisdiction prior to the date of notification on 29.03.2022 issued making the provisions of section 151A effective from that and framed the assessment

Sushanta Ghosh, Hooghly vs. I.T.O., Ward - 24(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2533/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Somnath Ghosh, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, DR
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151A

Officer. After hearing the rival contentions and perusing the materials available on record, we find that the assessment has been framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre vide order dated 22.03.2022, which in our opinion, is without jurisdiction as the Provisions of Section 151A of the Act which provides ... faceless assessment were notified from 29.03.2022 vide notification no. 18/2022/F. No. 370142/16/2022-TPL(Part) though the same were brought on statute book by the Taxation and Other Law (realization and amendment of certain provisions) Act, 2020 with effect from 01.11.2020. Considering these facts, the assessment framed by the National Faceless Appeal

Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited, Kolkata vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 193/KOL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shripradip Kumar Choubey, Jm Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited National Faceless Assessment C/O Agarwal Vishwanath & Centre, Associates, 2Nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Vs. 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Nehtru Road, New Delhi-110003 Pushkal Bhawan, 3 Rd Floor, Kolkata-700103, West Bengal (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcc3130H Assessee By : S/Shri Deep Agarwal & Shubhankar Ghosh, Ars Revenue By : Shri Santanu Ghosh, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 26.02.2026

For Appellant: S/Shri Deep Agarwal &For Respondent: Shri Santanu Ghosh, DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 68

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, AM AND SHRIPRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JM Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited National Faceless Assessment C/o Agarwal Vishwanath & Centre, Associates, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Vs. 133/1/1A, S.N. Banerjee Road, Nehtru Road, New Delhi-110003 Pushkal Bhawan, 3 rd floor, Kolkata ... basis of the impugned assessment were issued prior to 29.03.2022, i.e., before the CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 conferring jurisdiction upon the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) to conduct assessments under section 144B of the Act. Chitrakoot Tradeline Private Limited; A.Y. 2012-13 2.1. After hearing the rival contentions

DCIT CC 5(1), Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2885/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69C

151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification 18 of 2022 dated March 29, 2022 as the same has to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer; hence the order is bad in law and may be quashed on jurisdictional issue. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the order ... Assessee relates to challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO in short) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO in short) as per the provisions of section 151A of the Act read with CBDT notification 18 of 2022 dated March

DCIT CC 5(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2884/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69C

151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification 18 of 2022 dated March 29, 2022 as the same has to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer; hence the order is bad in law and may be quashed on jurisdictional issue. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the order ... Assessee relates to challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO in short) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO in short) as per the provisions of section 151A of the Act read with CBDT notification 18 of 2022 dated March

DCIT CC 5(1), Mumbai, Bkc vs. J Kumar Infraprojects Limited, Andheri

In the result, the CO filed by the assessee stands allowed

ITA 2883/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, () & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 250Section 69C

151A of the Act read with CBDT Notification 18 of 2022 dated March 29, 2022 as the same has to be issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer; hence the order is bad in law and may be quashed on jurisdictional issue. 3. Without prejudice to the above, the order ... Assessee relates to challenging the validity of notice issued u/s.148 of the Act by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO in short) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO in short) as per the provisions of section 151A of the Act read with CBDT notification 18 of 2022 dated March

Nathubhai Yusufji Kureshi, Banaskantha vs. The ITO, Ward-1, Modasa

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 95/AHD/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 69C

unexplained expenses u/s. 69C is incorrect. [5] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has also not considered that the Ld. A. O. National Faceless Assessment Centre has taxed under section 115BBE is wrong and not applicable to the real income. [6] The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, was also erred in considering ... that the Ld. A. O. National Faceless Assessment Centre has grievously erred in levying the interest under various sections of 234 is not applicable to the appellant and likely to be deleted. [7] The appellant therefore requests your goodself to kindly delete the above mentioned additions/disallowance, looking to the merits

Rajib Sarkar, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 2781/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar (Accountant Member), Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 250Section 69

taking a ground which reads as under: “For that on the facts and circumstances and legal position of the case, the Ld. AO, National faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) erred in having assumed jurisdiction under section 151A, read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 from 15.3.2022 when

Shailesh Asalraj Jain, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai 20, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2559/MUM/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Mr. Devendra JainFor Respondent: 03/12/2025
Section 147Section 148ASection 263

proceedings by the AO before allocation of the of the proceedings by the AO before allocation of the case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT (Systems) as case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT (Systems) as case to the Faceless Assessing Officer by the DGIT (Systems ... with the proceeding by the JAO is however not in accordance with the proceeding by the JAO is however not in accordance with the Faceless Assessment Scheme introduced w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and Faceless Assessment Scheme introduced w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and Faceless Assessment Scheme introduced w.e.f. 13.08.2020 and therefore, the dropping of asses

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 955/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura, Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 954/SRT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case

Palak Designer Diamond Jewellery, Mahidharpura Surat vs. Ld. AO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for AY 2016-17 is dismissed

ITA 953/SRT/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

Section 147Section 148Section 250

facts and circumstances of the appellant's case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in upholding the impugned assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi and deserves to be quashed. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellant's case

Rita Anil Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6640/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrita Anil Kapoor National Faceless Assessment Rowhouse No. 6, Grand Paradi, Centre, Delhi August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. [Present Jurisdiction Income-Tax Mumbai-400 036 Officer Ward 19(2)(4)-Mumbai] Pan/Gir No. Atvpk 7073 K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. P. Lohia Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Assessee, Arises Out Of Order Dated 19.08.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Solitary Issue On Merit Is Concerning The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.6,60,37,500/- U/S. 69 Of The Act, Representing Alleged Unexplained Investment In Purchase Of Immovable Property.

For Appellant: Shri M. P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri
Section 147Section 69

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Rita Anil Kapoor National Faceless Assessment Rowhouse No. 6, Grand Paradi, Centre, Delhi August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. [present jurisdiction Income-tax Mumbai-400 036 Officer Ward

Rushina Vikram Desai, Ahmedabad vs. Ward 3(3)(2), Income Tax Officer, Vejalpur, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 2300/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 10(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 2(14)Section 250Section 69Section 69B

raised by the Assessee are as follows: Your appellant being aggrieved by the Order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), presents this appeal against the same on the following amongst other

Linkpoint Infrastructure Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Central Circle 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1477/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Feb 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 36(2)

showing a total loss of ₹(-) 5,96,60,689/-. The case was selected for a limited scrutiny for the reason business loss under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) of the Act were issued. the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'AO') noted

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax-(1), Raipur vs. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Raipur

In the result, this appeal of Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 455/RPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 455/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2022-23) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Vs Rajesh Kumar Singh, New Purena, Circle-1(1), Aaykar Bhawan, Ravigram, Ravigram S O, Civil Lines, Raipur, C. G., 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Ajnps2776H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Suraj Gupta, Advocate (Virtually) राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 19/02/2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: This Appeal For Assessment Year (‘Ay’) 2022-23 Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Dated 13.05.2025 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), [‘Cit(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’), Delhi Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘Act’).

For Appellant: Shri Suraj Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 250Section 69C

documents from these parties to contradict the report of Verification Unit. She contended that the Ld. AO had followed proper procedure of investigation/enquiry/verification under Faceless Assessment Scheme. The Ld. Sr. DR drew our attention to the Standard Operating Procedure (SOP) for Assessment Unit (AU), Verification Unit (VU), Technical Unit ... Review Unit (RU) under the Faceless Assessment provisions of section 144B of the Act issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘NaFAC’) vide its letter F. No. Pr.CCIT/ NaFAC/Delhi/CIT-1/2022-23/112/92 dated 03.08.2022 to submit that this SOP for Verification Unit (VU) under the Faceless Assessment 9 DCIT, Circle

Nokha Trading LLP, Bangalore vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2397/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ankit Marlecha, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 1Section 10Section 10(35)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 56(2)(i)

order dated 21.6.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Page 2 of 10 Income Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “ 1. General Grounds 1.1. The National Faceless Assessment

Income Tax Officer, Kakinada vs. Andhra Pradesh United Teachers Federation, Kakinada

ITA 609/VIZ/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 251(1)(a)Section 69A

revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) had erred in setting aside the order of the assessment completed

Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma, Makarpura vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(7), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1821/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Kumar Goyal, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr. DR
Section 10Section 143(3)Section 147Section 17(2)(v)

reassessment, the assessee contended that the notice under section 148 of the Act was without jurisdiction and not issued in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme. The CIT(Appeals) examined the provisions of section 151A and the e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, Rajkumar Pavankumar Sharma vs. ITO Asst