“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

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Central Circle -1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1545/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022" and the "e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022", it is only the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (FAO) who can issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act and not the “Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” (JAO), and the assessments are statutorily ... said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 144B. Faceless Assessment: (1). (2) The faceless assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons, or incomes

Ankit Jain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle - 1(2), Hyderabad

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1544/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 292CSection 69

Rashid Hussain, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-1(3), Hyderabad

ITA 1322/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: SHRI RAVISH SOOD, HON'BLE (Judicial Member), SHRI MADHUSUDAN SAWDIA HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250Section 37(1)

Faceless Jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities Scheme, 2022" and the "e-Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022", it is only the “Faceless Assessing Officer” (FAO) who can issue the notice under Section 148 of the Act and not the “Jurisdictional Assessing Officer” (JAO), and the assessments ... said order dated 06.09.2021, for ready reference is again reproduced hereunder: Section 144B(2) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 144B. Faceless Assessment: (1). (2) The faceless assessment under sub-section (1) shall be made in respect of such territorial area, or persons or class of persons, or incomes

DCIT., Circle-3(1), Hyderabad vs. South Asian Ceramic Tiles Private Limited, Hyderabad

ITA 1228/HYD/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68Section 69

26/10/2022 declaring a loss of (Rs.18,74,49,155/-). Thereafter, the case of the assessee company was selected for complete scrutiny under the Faceless Assessment Scheme-2019 for verification of certain issues, viz., (i) that the assessee company had shown high liabilities in its balance sheet as compared

Cisco Systems (India) Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 2, Koramangala, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby dismissed

ITA 1234/BANG/2025[AY 2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore30 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year: 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Nageshwar Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shivanad Kalakeri, CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263Section 37(1)

payment to capital creditors. 15.1 Before examining the merits of the rival contentions, it is necessary to briefly advert to the statutory architecture of faceless assessment. Under section 144B of the Act, the assessment proceedings are conducted through the National Faceless Assessment Centre, which may assign different functions to specialized ... Where factual verification, examination of records, third-party enquiries or recording of statements is required, the Assessment Unit is empowered to request the National Faceless Assessment Centre to assign the matter to a Verification Unit. The Verification Unit then conducts the necessary enquiries and uploads its report, which forms part

Aparna Biswas, Mumbai vs. Ld. AO, Ld AO National Faceless Assessment Centre

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

ITA 6667/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 69A

TRIBUNAL, ‘A’ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Aparna Biswas Vs. Ld.AO, National Flat No.22, Sagar Faceless Assessment Sameep Sea Beach CHS Centre Ltd., Andheri West Mumbai PAN/GIR No.AEWPB2582G (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Assessee by Ms. Hema Sharma Revenue by Shri Surendra Mohan ... AMIT SHUKLA (J.M): The present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 02.09.2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, whereby the assessment for Assessment Year 2017–18 has been completed under section 147 read with section 144 of the Income

Devanand Amarnath Parkar, Jogeshwari East, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 41(4)(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bkc, Bandra East

ITA 6462/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 56(2)(viib)

National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1080924932(1), dated 19.09.2025, passed against the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Center, New Delhi, u/s. 147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 22.05.2023 for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds taken

Sudhir Motiram Patil, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kalyan

In the result, the appeal by the assessee is allowed

ITA 6190/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Girish Agrawalsudhir Motiram Patil C/O Hukumchand Jain, 16Th Floor, D Wing, Trade World Kamala Mills Compound, Senapati Bapat Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai, Maharashtra - 400013 ............... Appellant Pan: Avvpp1813G V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Rani Mansion, Murbad Road, ……………… Respondent Kalyan, Maharashtra – 421301 Assessee By : Shri Himanshu Gandhi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 151ASection 234A

assessment without considering the fact that the notice for reopening u/s 148 was issued by Jurisdictional assessing officer which is in violation of Faceless Assessment Scheme formulated under section 151A of Income Tax Act. 1961. 4. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Anshu Dhawan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4182/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S.Rifaur Rahmananshu Dhawan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No.933, Sector 17B, Delhi. Gurgaon – 122 001 (Haryana). (Pan : Aggpd5365D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashwani Kumar, Ca Shri Ankur Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 10.11.2025 Date Of Order : 30.01.2026 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 250

Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi in computing total income at Rs.83,45,015/- as against Rs.37,51,250/- as per return Of Income filed by the Appellant ... Delhi is against law and facts on the file in as much as he was not justified to uphold the action of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi in making an addition of Rs.45,93,765/- (being difference of Rs.2,22,00,000/- shown as full value consideration under

Patel Seva Sangh, Bokaro Steel City vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (National E-Assessment Centre), Ranchi

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

ITA 486/RAN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi29 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Patel Seva Sangh, I.T.O., C/O-Sardar Patel Public School, Sector- Exemption, Vs. 9, Bokaro-827009 (Jharkhand) Hazaribagh. Pan No. Aabtp 2202 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 44ASection 56

consider the peculiar facts and circumstances surrounding the assessment for the Assessment Year 2018-19, which was the first year of implementation of the Faceless Assessment Scheme and there was technical glitches in Income Tax portal. 2. That Ld. Commissioner Appeal Tax erred in confirming addition made by The Learned

Sp Chidambaram, Kanchipuram vs. ITO, Ward 1, Kanchipuram

ITA 3934/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S. & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 3934/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष/Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sp Chidambaram 21-A/6, Vallal Pachiyappan Street, Kancheepuram-631501 Tamil Nadu [Pan: Aachc 3681 B] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) V. The Ito, Ward (1), Kancheepuram, 96, Munuswamy Mudaliar Avenue, Kancheepuram-631501 (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/ Appellant By Mr. K. Subash Anbarasu, Adv प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से / Respondent By Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl. Cit सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing 28.01.2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 29.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Manu Kumar Giri, Jm: The Captioned Appeal By The Assessee Is Arising Out Of The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/Nfac, Delhi Dated 17.12.2025 For Ay 2020-21. 2. At The Outset, We Notice That The Assessee By The Ground No.4 Challenges The Jao Jurisdiction To Issue Notice U/S148 Dated 29.03.2024 Of The Act. :: 2 ::

Section 144BSection 147Section 148

issue has held as under: 1. A common issue has arisen in the captioned petitions, i.e., whether the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (‘JAO') or the Faceless Assessing Officer ('FAO') would have the jurisdiction to initiate re-assessment proceedings under Section 148 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act, hereinafter

Mercy Education Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(6), Chennai

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

ITA 2231/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2231/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. Mercy Education Trust, The Income Tax Officer, No.66, Sree Gokulam Towers, Vs. Non-Corporate Ward 19(6), Arcot Road, Chennai. Kodambakkam, Chennai – 600 024. Pan: Aactm 6190M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri N. Arjun Raj, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT

Section 10Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(2)(e)Section 273B

Ld.AR by referring to Ground No.5, submitted that notice u/s.148 of the Act has been issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) on 30.03.2022. It was submitted that subsequent to coming into force of the CBDT Notification dated 29.03.2022, the JAO does not have ... present case, could have reopened the assessment of the assessee by issuance of notice dated 31.03.2022 u/s.148 of the Act (which ultimately resulted in Faceless Assessing Officer [FAO] passing the assessment order u/s.147 of the Act dated 28.03.2023). 23. In the present case, we note that the JAO, Shri

Yogesh Jagannath Satav, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-12(4), Pune

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

ITA 2022/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2022/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Yogesh Jagannath Satav, The Income Tax Officer, Fadai Chowk, Nagar Road, Ward – 12(4), Pune Wagholi, Taluka-Haveli, Vs. Pune-412207 Pan : Bbtps3761B अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Digambar Surwase Department By : Shri Manish Mehta Date Of Hearing : 20-01-2026 Date Of 28-01-2026 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Of The Ld. Additional/Joint Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai [“Addl./Jcit(A)”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2014-15. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Cit(A) (National Faceless Assessment Centre) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Of Appellant Even Though Form-5 Under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme Was Not Issued The Appellant By Jurisdictional Commissioner Of Income Tax. The Appellant Prays That Appeal May Be Restored Back To File To Of Cit(A) For Hearing The Appeal On Merits. 2. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Passed Under Section 250 By Cit(A) Nfac, Delhi Dismissing The Appeal Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principal Of Natural Justice. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 3. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Not Passing A Speaking Order On The Grounds Raised By The Appellant Before Nafc. The Appellant Prays For Just, Fair & Appropriate Relief. 4. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Appellant Prays That Appeal Deemed To Be Withdrawn, May Be Revived.

For Appellant: Shri Digambar SurwaseFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 250

raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned CIT(A) (National Faceless Assessment Centre) erred in dismissing the appeal of appellant even though Form-5 under Direct Taxes Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme was not issued the appellant

Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust, Pune vs. CIT (Exemption), Pune

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

ITA 1357/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2020-21 Bansilal Ramnath Agarwal Charitable Trust Cit (Exemption), 251, Budhwar Peth, City Post Chowk, Vs. Pune Pune – 411002 Pan: Aaatb4383K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 11-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 28-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, V.P:

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 11Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 2(15)Section 263

issued and served on the assessee. Notices u/s 142(1) of the Act were issued from time to time through Faceless assessment scheme in response to which the assessee filed the requisite details. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment on 20.09.2022 determining the total income of the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nizamabad vs. Bharat Thakker Kalpana, Nizamabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1456/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1456/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 The Income Tax Officer, Bharat Thakker Kalpana Ward-1, Nizamabad – 503 001. Vs. Nizamabad. Pan Afkpt4232Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा /Assessee By: -None- राज" व "ारा /Revenue By: Ms P Sumitha, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 13.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 28.01.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 143(1)(a)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Jurisdictional Assessing Officer [in short “JAO”] u/sec.148 of the Income Tax Act [in short "the Act"], 1961 was held as invalid without following the Faceless Assessment Scheme and provisions of sec.151A of the Act. 5. The learned DR has relied upon the Orders of the Assessing Officer and submitted that ... matter in appeal before the learned CIT(A) challenging the validity of notice issued by JAO u / sec.148 of the Act instead of Faceless Assessment Officer [ in short 5 ITA.No.1456/Hyd./2025 “FAO” ] as per the National Faceless Assessment Scheme. The learned CIT(A) allowed the appeal of the assessee

Vasuki Katakam, Kurnool vs. ITO., Ward-1, Kurnool

ITA 1327/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad28 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं / Ita No.1327/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: CA Hari AgarwalFor Respondent: MS P Sumitha, Sr. AR

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151ASection 64Section 69A

appreciate the fact that the notice u/s 148 dated 01.04.2022 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing officer, Ward 1. Kurnool (JAO), Instead of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (FAO) as mandated u/s 151A r.w.s 1448 of the Act, which is invalid and without jurisdiction. Therefore, the reassessment proceedings ... dated 01.04.2022 is not valid and consequently, the re-assessment order on the ground that the procedure as per the National Faceless Assessment Scheme has not been followed and, therefore, the same is bad in law and liable to be set-aside. In support of his contention, the learned Authorised

Garrah Skus Limited, Bankura vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Bankura

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

ITA 2361/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 226(3)Section 250Section 69ASection 69C

Appellant under Section 147 of the Act. In the said assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act, the assessment unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre had made an addition on account of unexplained money under section 69A and had also disallowed an expenditure on account of unexplained expenditure

Ganesan Neelamegam, Kancheepuram vs. ITO, Ward 1 Kancheepuram, Kancheepuram

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

ITA 3131/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 3131/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shri Ganesan Neelamegam, The Income Tax Officer, No.116/112, North Street, Vs. Ward 1, Ayyampettai S.O, Kancheepuram. Ayyampettai, Kancheepuram – 631 601. Pan: Aeypn 9036M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. Srinithi, Advocate For Shri N.V. Balaji, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 28.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28.01.2026

For Appellant: Ms. Srinithi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

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

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5986/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69C

upholding the assessment order 2 ('impugned order') passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre ('Ld. NFAC'). 3. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law and on facts in confirming the addition ... upholding the assessment order ('impugned order') passed under Section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 ('the Act') by the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre ('Ld. NFAC'). 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed to provide an opportunity via video conferring to explain the submission as requested

Strides Pharma Science Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 15(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5985/MUM/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 271ASection 274Section 69C