“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

Sejalben Patel, Vadodara vs. The Pr.CIT, Vadodara-1, Vadodara

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 701/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2018-19 Sejalben Patel The Pr.Cit-1 1049, Kantvalue Faliyu Vs. Vadodara. At & Po-Karkhadi Tal. Padra, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Drhpp 9550 D Asstt.Year : 2018-19 Binitaben Sandipkumar Patel The Pr.Cit-1 Javla, Chotra Pase Vs. Vadodara. Savli, Dist. Vadodara. Pan : Cwopp 4609 Q (Applicant) (Responent)

For Appellant: Ms.Urvashi Sodhan, AR

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194Section 263Section 31Section 54

assessment order and the DVO reference on the same date was procedural in nature and not fatal, we are unable to agree. In the faceless assessment system, every digital act is timestamped and has legal finality. Once the order is authenticated and uploaded, it constitutes a concluded proceeding. ITA No.701

Dilip Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 819/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. Nos.818 & 819/Kol/2025 Assessment Years: 2017-2018 & 2018-2019 Dilip Roy,……………….……………...….………Appellant Sipaipara, Shahudangi Hat, Jalpaiguri-735135, West Bengal [Pan:Ainpr9363C] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………...…….Respondent Ward-1(1), Jalpaiguri, Central Revenue Building, Race Course Road, Jalpaiguri-735101, W.B.

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

questionnaire to the assessee but no reply was received from the assessee. In the meantime, the case of the assessee was selected under the faceless assessment scheme and the case was transferred to the Faceless Assessment Unit. A notice was issued to the assessee to furnish the information

Dilip Roy, Jalpaiguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jalpaiguri

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 818/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jul 2025AY 2017-2018

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, Kanyakumari vs. The Income Tax Officer, International Taxation Ward, Tuticorin

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

ITA 1357/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1357/Chny/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2018-19 V. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai, The Ito, 12-5 G/4, Kumaragam Garden, International Taxation Ward, Channel Street, Vadakkoor, Thovalai, Tuticorin. Kanyakumari 629 302. [Pan: Ahepb 2348 F] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. N. Arjun Raj, Advocate प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से /Respondent By : Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 17.07.2025 घोर्णाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Chennai-16, (Hereinafter In Short ‘The Ld.Cit(A)’), Dated 31.07.2024 For The Assessment Year (Hereinafter In Short ‘Ay’) 2018-19. 2. The Registry Has Noted Delay Of ‘224’ Days In Filing The Appeal. Considering The Period Of Delay & Reasons Pleaded, We Condone The Delay & Admit The Appeal For Adjudication. Kumaresan Bhagavathiperumal Pillai :: 2 :: 3. At The Outset, The Ld. Counsel For The Assessee Has Raised An Additional Ground Relating To Jurisdiction Of Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘Jao’) In The Light Of The Cbdt Notification Dated 29.03.2022. The Ld.Dr, Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam, Jcit, Objected Admission Of Additional Ground Raised By The Assessee.

For Respondent: Ms. Gauthami Manivasagam

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

Ostrich Mobility Instruments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Page 2 of 6 Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] , was dismissed. 2. The reason for dismissal of the appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) granted 7 opportunities

M/S. Alucast Engineering Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5264/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Prabhash Shankarm/S Alucast Engineering V/S. Deputy Commissioner Of Pvt. Ltd. Company, 3/18, Ac बनाम Income Tax, Circle – 6(1)(1), Market,Tardeo Road, Room No. 504, Aayakar Tulsiwadi S.O., Mumbai–400 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai 034, Maharashtra – 400020, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aahca9486C Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi,ARFor Respondent: Dr. K.R. Subhash,(CIT DR)

Section 147

even considering this aspect of the matter. 5.5 It is also pointed out that a similar issue had been accepted in a Faceless Assessment in the case of a group concern in Volition Trading P. Ltd. Also, even in the case of PMS itself, a similar issue was picked ... reassessment and then accepted by the Assessing officer himself in a Faceless Assessment. All the requisite details, documents, evidences of sales, purchases, bank statements, etc. were furnished and had not been disputed. Exactly similar transactions have been considered and duly accepted by National Faceless Appeal Centre, in the case

Mandir Shri Sita Ram Ji Maharaj Sewa Samiti, Palwal vs. Additional/Joint/ Duputy/Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 307/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2019-20] Mandir Shri Sita Ram Ji Vs Additional/Joint/ Maharaj Sewa Samiti, Deputy Commissioner Old Sohna Road, Opp. Naaz Of Income Tax, Nfac, Cinema, Palwal, Delhi-110002. Haryana-121102 Pan-Aaeam7719H Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Shubham Goel, Adv. Respondent By Written Adjournment Application Date Of Hearing 28.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025 Order

Section 270A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) dated 03.02.2022 passed by Ld. Additional / Joint/ Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] pertaining to assessment year 2019-20. 2. Before us, Ld. Counsel for the assessee under the instructions of the assessee prayed

Incometax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. Prasad Raju Penmatsa, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

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

33/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) - REVENUE APPEAL 15. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: - “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) erred estimating the business profit at Rs.99

Babu Rao Sahukari, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2 (5), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 327/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.327/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Babu Rao Sahukari Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 2(5) 24-107-54/1 Visakhapatnam – 530020 C/O. Srikar Sai Medical Agencies Andhra Pradesh Gonthivanipalem Gajuwaka, Visakhapatnam – 530026 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Efnps1341E] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri M. Muralidhar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69ASection 69C

That the procedure adopted by the Ld JAO, Ward-2(5), was not in order and not as per procedure laid down under "Faceless assessments" & shall be by FAO only, and there was no service of notice for the variations proposals since the same is a mandatory condition for completing

Penmatsa Prasad Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 517/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

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

Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Raju Mantena, Kalla Mandalam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 174/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.174/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Bala Venkata Shiva Satya Naga Vs. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 Raju Mantena Bhimavaram 2-272/3, Malavani Thippa West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh Kaluvapudi – 534236 Kalla Mandalam West Godavari District Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aocpm1009D] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri K.Siva Ram Kumar, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 148

This Ground is without prejudice to the Ground of lack of jurisdiction. 4. The Notice issued under Sec.148 was not in accordance with the faceless assessment scheme and issuance in a non-faceless manner is bad in law. This Ground is without prejudice to the Ground of lack of jurisdiction