“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

Bhaskar Sasi Kumar, Alappuzha vs. The Departmental Representative, Kochi

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

ITA 772/COCH/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Soundararajan K, JM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 12.07.2024in respect of assessment year 2016-2017. 2. At the outset, we noticed from the letter dated 10th March

Arvind Charitable Trust, Trivandrum vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trivandrum

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

ITA 301/COCH/2024[AY 2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Sri.Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt.Leena Lal, Sr.AR

Section 12ASection 143Section 143(1)Section 154

Soundararajan K, JM : This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre / Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)” for short] dated 19.02.2024in respect of assessment year 2015-2016, and raised the following grounds:- “1. The order dated

Shree Auro Iron Limited, Jaipur vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-I, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 788/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Pravin Saraswant, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Alka Gautam, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 145ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 263Section 48

proceedings before DIT (I&CI)”. Accordingly, notice under section 148 dated 30.03.2021 was served on the assessee. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the faceless assessment unit. Accordingly, notices under section 142(1) were issued on 24.11.2021 and 11.02.2022. In response the assessee filed replies ... assessee u/s 148 for the year under consideration was carried out in the "Faceless manner" by NFAC. 2.5 It is a fact that every faceless assessment is carried out through a teamwork of assessment unit, technical unit, review unit, verification unit etc. Since different units are headed by Principal Commissioner

Nihal Industries Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1488/AHD/2024[A.Y. 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2025

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.1488/Ahd/2024 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2014-15 Nihal Industries Private The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ Limited Ward-3(1)(1) V/S. 1961, Above Royal Cycle Ahmedabad Inside Panchkuwa Panchkuwa Ahmedabad – 380 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aadcn 7129 D (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Arjav D. Vidani, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 11 /03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12 /03/2025 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Nfac, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 21.06.2024, Confirming The Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao”] Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] For Assessment Year (Ay) 2014-15. Nihal Industries Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Ito Asst. Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Arjav D. Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Ketaki Desai, Sr.DR

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

they were not aware about the assessment proceedings. 6. The Departmental Representative (DR), on the other hand, stated that as per the scheme of faceless assessment the notices are issued online by mail and therefore there is no question of non-receipt of notices. 7. We have carefully considered

Dynapac Road Construction Equipment (India) Private Limited, Pune vs. The Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, NFAC and ACIT Circle 8, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as ‘Withdrawn’

ITA 1988/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Mar 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Nupur ShahFor Respondent: Shri Prakash L Pathade, CIT DR

Road Construction The Assessment Unit, Equipment (India) Private Limited, Income Tax Plot No.1, Gat No.163 (Part), Department, National 164-168, Alandi Markal Road, Vs. Faceless Assessment Village : Fulgaon, Taluka Haveli, Centre, Delhi and Dist. Pune, The ACIT, Circle-8, Maharashtra, India-412216 Akurdi, Pune PAN: AAGCD1573N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee

Himasagar Krishna Muthappagari, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-2(3), Tirupati

ITA 687/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us.

For Appellant: Shri M. Uday Teja, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. M. Narmada, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati is not justified in revising the Assessment Order for AY2016-17 passed by the Faceless Assessment Centre U/s 147 r.w.s 144B and ordering for Re- Assessment, both in Law, Facts of the case, Equity and Natural Justice. 2. The Assessee filed Return of Income ... under V.V.S Scheme and paid taxes thereon. Later on the case was re-opened U/s 148 on 29/03/2021 and completed on 22/03/2022 by Faceless Assessment Centre by accepting the income assessed U/s 143(3). After 2 years i.e on 25/03/2024 Hon'ble Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirupati revised

Jatin Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 609/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N R Agarwal / Ms. Jenisha ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

order passed on 28/12/2019and for A.Y. 2013-14 order passed on 31/03/2022 under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2 Jatin Shantilal Shah 2. Both the appeals have same nature of facts and have common issue. Therefore, both the appeals were heard

Jatin Shantilal Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, ITO Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 584/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri N R Agarwal / Ms. Jenisha ShahFor Respondent: Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 901/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

being the commission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC is reiterated here below

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 875/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Rs.3,25,010/- being the commission of 2.5% commission for obtaining this accommodation entry. 12. Aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Center, assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC. Apropos to the grounds raised the relevant finding of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

ITA 873/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Income Tax Officer, Jaipur vs. Kedia Builders and Colonizers Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, all appeals of the revenue are stands dismissed

ITA 872/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Mar 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Sh. Sidharth RankaFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147

Ram Kishor Soni, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present AO: the ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1282/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ram Kishor Soni, 626, Sector No.3, Chankyapuri, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Blips8712B बनाम/ V/S. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present A.O.: Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri P. F. Jain, Ar Revenue By: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 10/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 11/03/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: Both These Appeals Filed By The Assessee Pertain To Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15 Against The Respective Orders Of Commissioner Of Appeal, National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)"], Confirming The Additions Made By The Assessing Officer [Hereinafter Referred To As "Ao"] Under Section 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961[Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"], On Account Of Unexplained Cash Deposits In The Assessee'S Bank Accounts. Since The Issues Involved In Both The Appeals Are Identical, They Are Disposed Of By This Consolidated Order.

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69A

Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15 Ram Kishor Soni, 626, Sector No.3, Chankyapuri, Ghatlodiya, Ahmedabad-380061 स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN: BLIPS8712B बनाम/ v/s. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present A.O.: Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी / (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri P. F. Jain, AR Revenue

Ram Kishor Soni, Ahmedabad vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi Present AO: the ITO, Ward-4(2)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1281/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita Nos.1281&1282/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri P. F. Jain, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 132Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 69A

Usha Rani Chebrolu, Guntur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 532/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam07 Mar 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shrik Narasimha Chary, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble(Hybrid Hearing) आयकर अपीलसं./ I.T.A.532/Viz/2024 (ननधधारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Usha Rani Chebrolu, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Guntur. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abmpc8555B Guntur. (अपीलधथी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) अपीलधथी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar प्रत्यधथी की ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 56Section 69A

Guntur is invalid for the reason that i. the notice has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless Assessment centre as mandated by the e-assessment of income escaping assessment scheme. (ii) the notice is issued with prior approval of Pr. CCIT, AP & Telangana ... Consequently, the entire assessment proceedings under such an invalid notice are bad in law and ab initio void. 5. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified and the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in confirming the determination

Akesh Sangemermer(P) Ltd, Industrial Area vs. ITO Ward 1 Kishangarh, City Road

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1311/JPR/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Mar 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Him.

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-Sr.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69

because the assessee challenged the order passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short “Act”) dated 23.03.2024 passed by National Faceless Assessment Unit [ for short AO] before him. 2 Akesh Sangemermer (P) Ltd. vs. ITO 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds

Income Tax Officer Exemption Ward, Tirupati vs. Sree Ssv Gate Society, Tirupati

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed and C

ITA 1214/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad07 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1214/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Income Tax Officer Vs. Sree Ssv Gate Society Exemption Ward Tirupati Tirupati Pan:Aagts4803D (Appellant) (Respondent) C.O No.1/Hyd/2025 आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1214/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17) Sree Ssv Gate Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Tirupati Exemption Ward Pan:Aagts4803D Tirupati (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Srinath Sadanala, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/03/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 07/03/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri K.A. Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Srinath Sadanala, DR

Section 269SSection 269sSection 271DSection 274

Exemption), Vijayawada has issued a notice u/s 274 read with section 271D of the I.T. Act, 1961. Thereafter, the case was transferred to Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019 and your case was assigned to this Assessment Unit.” 9. Thus, there is no dispute regarding the fact that this amount was received

DCIT 5 3 1, Mumbai vs. Altr International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appe

ITA 451/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Hiren VepariFor Respondent: 06/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

PRAKASH KANT, AM The captioned appeals have been preferred by the Revenue against two separate order, dated 22.01.2025 and 28.11.2024 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ in short the ld CIT(A)] for assessment years 2008-09 and 2009-10 respectively. The facts of both the appeals being

DCIT 5 3 1 Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Altr International Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, both the appe

ITA 450/MUM/2025[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Mar 2025AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

For Appellant: Mr. Hiren VepariFor Respondent: 06/03/2025

Section 143(3)Section 263

Vivek Khabia, Surat vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, ground No. 3 is allowed and ground No

ITA 1072/SRT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Mar 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 1072/Srt/2024 (Ay 2018-19) (Physical Court Hearing) Vivek Khabia Income Tax Officer, Ward- H.No.1187-90-91, 1089, Office 2(3)(4), Surat, Aaykar Bhavan, बनाम No.411, New Dtc Gheekanta Majura Gate, Surat-395 001 Vs Road, Nr. Bhavani Vad Temple, Haripura, Surat-395 003 [Pan : Avspk 5724 E] अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 145(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 254(1)Section 28

raised the following grounds of appeal:- “The appellant prefers an appeal against an order passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 30.08.2024 on following amongst other grounds, each of which are without prejudice to any other:- Vivek Khabia 1.0 On facts and circumstances ... order u/s 148A(d) and notice u/s 148 had been issued by jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and had not been issued by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO), thereby violating the provision of Sec. 151A of the Act. 2.0 On facts and circumstances of the case