“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

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the appellant made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 1,06,67,283/- and also withdrawn cash from the current account consideration, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 24.03.2021. The appellant neither complied

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Jihas Abduljaleel, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

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

ITA 523/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jihas Abduljaleel .......... Appellant Shihas Manzil, Kannamkode, Kummil Post, Kollam [Pan: Blypa6333C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 23.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Livestock. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act), Which Remained Uncomplied With By The Appellant. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which remained uncomplied with by the appellant. Subsequently, 2 Jihas Abduljaleel the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO") completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Therefore, the AO issued notice

Chellappan Sankaranathan, Sivaganga vs. ACIT, International Taxation Circle, Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our

ITA 930/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri Jagadishआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.930/2025 (िनधा(रणवष( / Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Mr.N.V. Narayanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148A

does not matter if the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) issues the notice and it is not mandatory that it should be issued by the Faceless Assessment Officer (FAO). Another learned Single Judge in order dated 21.04.2025 in WP No.22402 of 2024 and batch cases, followed what was held

Combine Diamonds Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT-5(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 2474/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiyashri Sandeep Singh Karhailcombine Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Fw 6010B, 6Th Floor, Bharat Diamond Bourse, East Wing, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai - 400051 ............... Appellant Pan : Aaacc9949H V/S Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax ……………… Respondent 5(1)(2), Mumbai Assessee By : Shri Rahul Sarda Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, CIT-DR

Section 250

order dated 13.02.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, [“learned CIT(A)”] for the assessment year 2009-10. 2. During the hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (“learned AR”), at the outset

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Beswal, Thane vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Beswal No. 18/2022 dated 29/03/2022, the issuance of notice under Section 148 after 29/03/2022 should only be done by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Therefore, the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction ... parties and perused the material on record. We notice that the impugned issue of validity of notices issued by JAO post introduction of faceless assessment from 29.03.2022 has been considered by the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in various cases and the Hon'ble High Court has been consistently holding

Aashita Garg, Nabha, Patiala vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward Nabha, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Miss Pallavi, Advocate and Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151A

void ab initio, as the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A of the Act, vide notification No. CBDT Notification No. 18/2022/F ... submitted that after issuance of the said notification on 29/03/2022, the notice under section 148 ought to have been issued by the Faceless Assessment Unit and not by the Jurisdictional AO. It was accordingly submitted that the notice so issued under section 148 has clearly been issued without jurisdiction

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

interests of the revenue'. 3. The Learned PCIT has erred in law by not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('AO') passed the assessment order after examining all details that were called for by the Learned AO and duly submitted by the Appellant ... remand, recording that there was failure to investigate 10. The Learned PCIT failed to consider that the assessment order was passed under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2020 which is a team- based assessment, and hence assessment order passed cannot be considered as 'erroneous'. M/s. India Japan Lighting

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Shaikh vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 Submission of Ld. DR: 4. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On a perusal of the order

Payyoli Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Payyoli, Kozhikode vs. ITO, Ward-2(2), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 437/COCH/2025[AY 2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Aug 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Soundararajan K., Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Payyoli Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. .......... Appellant Preambra Road, Payyoli, Kozhikode 673522 [Pan: Aabap7021Q] Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(2), Kozhikode .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Sujit Kumar T.N., Ca Revenue By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 14.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 17.05.2023 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Co-Operative Society Registered Under The Kerala State Co-Operative Societies Act, 1969. It Is Classified As A Primary Agricultural Credit Co-Operative Society. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Accepting Deposits From Members & Providing Credit Facilities To Members. The Return Of 2 Payyoli Service Co-Op. Bank Ltd. Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 29.10.2018 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 76,180/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Called "The Ao") Vide Order Dated 01.06.2021 Passed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) At Total Income Of Rs. 8,25,31,608/-. While Doing So, The Ao Disallowed The Claim For Deduction U/S. 80P Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Sujit Kumar T.N., CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 80P

filed on 29.10.2018 declaring total income of Rs. 76,180/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 01.06.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) at total

Loganathan Dhandapani, Chennai vs. ACIT, Ncc-3(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2240/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Jagadish

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

What is covered in clause 3(a) of the Scheme is already provided in Section 144B(1) of the Act, which Section provides for faceless assessment, and covers assessment, reassessment or recomputation under Section 147 of the Act. Therefore, if Revenue's arguments are to be accepted, there ... purpose of framing a Scheme only for clause 3(a) which is in any event already covered under faceless assessment regime in Section 144B of the Act. The argument of respondent, therefore, renders the whole Scheme redundant. An argument which renders the whole Scheme otiose cannot be accepted as correct

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

ruling of Hon’ble Madras High Court in . ITA No.901 & 902/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 17 the case of Mrs. R Chitra vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre reported in 164 taxmann.com 134 or 474 ITR 78 where it was held as under: “7. Based on the rival submissions, the first issue

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

Alegowda Nagesh, Bengaluru vs. ACIT, Circle-1(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 546/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Sheetal Borkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 20/01/2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. CIT(A) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year

Chourasiainfratech Pvt Ltd., Bengaluru vs. DCIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 317/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Y Pranay Sharma, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 246ASection 250Section 253(3)

SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 15/09/2023 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Center (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. CIT(A) in short (Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year

Narendrakumar Lalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 4226/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Ar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 08/05/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity, ‘Ld. AO’) passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, date of order 01/03/2022. 2 ITA 4226/Mum /2025 Narendrakumar Lalchand Jain ... well within the limitation period, as the relevant financial year ended on 31.03.2020, and six months from December 2019 extended to 30.06.2020. However, the faceless assessment regime, coupled with procedural delays, justifies the condonation of any perceived delay, as the appellant was granted multiple opportunities to comply, aligning with

Thrissur District NRI Service Co-Operative Society, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as premature

ITA 909/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 119(2)(b)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

No.909/COCH/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thrissur District NRI Service Co-operative Society…….…......…..….……….Appellant N P Tower, Poothole, Kerala – 680004. [PAN:AAEAT6988M] vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE.......……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf

Sandeep Natani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by

ITA 884/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging Assessment Order Dated 21.03.2022, Passed By The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Said Appeal Came To Be Dismissed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, On 19.03.2025, Thereby Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 69A

Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Assessee was in appeal before Learned CIT(A), while challenging assessment order dated 21.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2015-16. Said appeal came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, on 19.03.2025, thereby sustaining

Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1087/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2020-21 Mr.Rajendra Shakharam Badgujar The Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 42, Jay Raghunath Society Vs. Vejalpur Priya Cinema Road Ahmedabad. Krushnanagar Saijpur Ahmedabad 382 346. Pan : Afupb 1181 J (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Shri Ritesh Shah, AR

Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 56(2)(x)Section 69

Rs.4,70,890/-. The return 2 was selected for Limited Scrutiny under CASS for the examination of investment in immovable property. During the faceless assessment, a notice u/s 143(2) dated 29.06.2021 was followed by several notices u/s 142(1). The assessee replied only to the first, on 20.11.2021, furnishing

Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward- Hingoli, Hingoli

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

ITA 781/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 142(1)Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ['the Ld. AO'] of ₹ 51,11,900/- u/s 69A of the Act. 4.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case