“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

Soumendra Gupta, Sujapur, Malda vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1022/KOL/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2024AY 2014-2015

Bench: Dr. Manish Boradi.T.A. No.1022/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2014-15

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

dated 24.04.2024 arising out of the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act by AO, Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 01.03.2022. 2. Grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding

Suhas Hirachand Mehta, Dapoi, Ratnagiri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Ratnagiri

ITA 1070/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Suhas Hirachand Mehta At Post-Jalgaon, Dapoli, Ratnagiri-410571. Pan: Akspm5272G. . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘AO / NeAC’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2017-18 [‘AY’ hereinafter]; 2. The case was called twice, none appeared at the bequest

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 124/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.124/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-1(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) आयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.123/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2016-17) Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vs. Deputy / Assistant 30-22-80, Shop No. 6G, Kp Commissioner Of Income Tax, Towers, Eluru Road, Durga Circle-2(1), Agraharam, Vijayawada-520002. Vijayawada. Pan: Acdfs2608B (अपीलधर्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) अपीलधर्थी की ओर से/ Assessee By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar प्रत्यधर्थी की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Satyasai Rath, Cit-Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख / Date Of Hearing : 19/06/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of : 24/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R Per S. Balakrishnan: Both The Captioned Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

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

dated 23/03/2021 was issued to the assessee. Meanwhile, since the assessment was transferred on 11/11/2021 from jurisdictional Assessing Officer to Faceless Assessment Centre, the assessee was issued notices U/s. 142(1) and called for certain information. In response to the notice, the assessee submitted its reply on 7/1/2022. Further

Sri Suryateja Constructions, Vijayawada vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 123/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam24 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Satyasai Rath, CIT-DR

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

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 782/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.S.Seethalakshmi & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781 & 782/Jpr/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year(S) : 2015-16 Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, The Income Tax Kalani & Co, Chartered V Officer, Accountants, 5Th Floor, S Ward-1, Sikar. Milestone Building, Gandhinagar Turn, Tonk Road, Jaipur- 302015. Pan: Agmps6843H Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri P.C.Parwal – Ca Revenue By Shri Anoop Singh–Addl.Cit(Ar) Date Of Hearing 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 24/07/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: These Two Appeals Filed By The Assessee I.E.Mr.Sanjay Sharma Against Two Separate Orders Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Both Dated 29.04.2024 For A.Y.2015-16, One Emanating From The Assessment Order U/Sec.147 Dated 27.03.2023

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

resident whereas the assessee is non-resident and thus the jurisdiction over the assessee lies with AO, International Taxation and not with National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in not deciding the appeal on merit relating to addition ... resident whereas the assessee is non-resident and thus the jurisdiction over the assessee lies with AO, International Taxation and not with National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3. The appellant craves to alter, amend and modify any ground of appeal. 4. Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” Submission of ld.AR

Sh. Sanjaya Sharma, Sikar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sikar

In the result, both appeals of the assessee in ITA

ITA 781/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

Takira Real Estate P Limited, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2016/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh, Jm Income Tax Officer, Takira Real Estate P. Ltd. Ward 5(3)(1) 12/14, Gordhan Building No. Ii, 553-Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Girgaon S.O. Mumbai-400 004 Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aacct9595N Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Kothari, Ar Revenue By : Shri Rajneesh Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing: 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.07.2024

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Kothari, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rajneesh Yadav, DR

Section 131(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 282Section 69

Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in ignoring that all notices were served by the Ld. Assessing Officer in 2019 i.e. when the Faceless Assessment Scheme was not in vogue and all the notices were still sent by the Ld. Assessing Officer by electronic mode and no notice was served

Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-23(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1682/MUM/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Mr. K GopalFor Respondent: Mr. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 69

MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Farees Ahmed Khalil Ahmed National Faceless Assessment Shaikh, Centre, Vs. 702 20, B Wing Makali Park, 336 ITO-23(1)(1), Bazaar Road, Bandra (W), Mumbai. Mumbai-400050. PAN NO. DRDPS

Aaravi Developers, Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 3, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 659/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.659/Ahd/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2018-19 Aaravi Developers The Pr.Cit-3 बनाम/ A-312, Siddhi Vinayak Tower Ahmedabad B/H. Divya Bhaskar V/S. S.G. Highway, Makarba Ahmedabad – 380 051 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Abdfa 5385 J अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, Ar Revenue By : Shri Kamlesh Makwana, Cit-Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 16/07/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 23/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 16-03-2024 Passed By The Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax-3, Ahmedabad (Hereinafter Referred To As “Pcit” In Short) In Exercise Of The Revisionary Powers Under Section 263 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act” In Short) For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. Aaravi Developers Vs. The Pr.Cit Asst. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, ARFor Respondent: Shri Kamlesh Makwana, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

duly considered by the AO before concluding the assessment. 5.2. The Ld.Counsel for the assessee also contented that as per the scheme of the faceless assessment the details provided by the assessee are also verified by the verification unit and, therefore, due inquiry must have been conducted not only

Baba Shivaji Khawale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(3), Pune

ITA 859/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17 Baba Shivaji Khawale, 1264, Near Nagraj Body Builder, Chikhali, Pune-411062. Pan: Bqapk3725R. . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(3), Pune. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr B B Mane Through Mr Ankesh[‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 23/07/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 23/07/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; The Assessee Is In Appeal Against The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfas/S/250/2023- 24/1062105966(1) Dt. 06/03/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Passed Which In Turn Confirmed The Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Act By The National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘Neac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2016-17 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter];

For Appellant: Mr B B Mane through Mr Ankesh[‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umashankar Prasad [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 151(2)Section 250Section 69A

Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed which in turn confirmed the order of assessment passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [‘NeAC’ hereinafter] anent to assessment year 2016-17 [‘AY’ hereinafter]; 2. After preliminary briefing from the Ld. DR, we deem ... appellant. Because of the fact that the appellant was not served with the notices, the Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NaFAC) Learned Assessing Officer (Ld. AO) erred under circumstances and facts of the case and in law by not providing reasonable opportunity to appellant

Rapiscan Systems Inc, United States vs. ADIT, (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 588/HYD/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M P Lohia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav CIT(DR)

have been dispatched through Speed Post to the third respondent (TPO) and the fourth respondent (Addi"onal/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Na"onal Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi) on 27 June 2022. It is therea"er that the TPO appears to have passed the order dated 25 July ... orders, no"ces and decisions have to be necessarily uploaded on the ITBA portal and as part of the larger faceless assessment regime which now holds the field. The uploading of the direc"ve of the DRP on the ITBA portal would thus cons"tute valid and sufficient service

Rapiscan Systems Inc, United States vs. ADIT, (International Taxation)-2, Hyderabad

In the result, appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 587/HYD/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad23 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K.Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri M P Lohia (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Kumar Pranav CIT(DR)

Reena Mathur, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 78/JPR/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Satish Shivnani, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

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

records is that the assessment order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income- tax Act, 1961 was passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi on 27.03.2022 and total income was assessed at Rs. 16,18,000/-. During the course of assessment proceedings, following Notices ... Reena Mathur vs. ITO to the said Notice dated 27.03.2022, no reply was furnished by the assessee. 3.1 The case was transferred from National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi to ITO, Ward 2(1), Ajmer on 01.08.2022 with the remarks “The Faceless Penalty Scheme-2021 has been amended by Faceless Penalty

Sunil Chablani, Ajmer, Rajasthan vs. Circle (Intl Tax), Jaipur, Rajasthan

ITA 68/JPR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Mahendra Gargieya &For Respondent: Shri Anil Dhaka (CIT-DR)

Section 144Section 144CSection 144C(5)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 45

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिक

Baroda Rajasthan Khestriya Gramin Bank, Ajmer vs. PCIT, Udaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 253/JPR/2024[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur22 Jul 2024

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Shailesh Mantri, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263

being questioned by PCIT u/s 263, is the order passed under face less scheme of Assessment by NfAO. It is a fact that any faceless assessment which is carried out through a teamwork of assessment unit, technical unit, review unit, verification unit etc. Since different units are headed by Principal

Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, 2(5), Kalyan, Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 391/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharshi & Shri Anikesh Banerjeemr. Lalit Bhaskar Bhalerao Vs The Ito.W. 2(5), Kalyan Rom No. 25-B, 6Th Floor, Ashar It (Individual), Plot No. 56, Flat No. 101, Hansa Park, Wagale Indl, Estate, Apartment Kansai Section, Thane-400604 Ambernath East, Thane-421501 Pan : Ammpb3272D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Hetal LaghaveFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha(SRDR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 156Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 275Section 44A

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year2012-13, date of order 04.12.2023.The impugned order was emanated from the order of the Ld.National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi(in short, ‘the ld. A.O.’) passed under section271(1)(c)of the Act date of order16/10/2022. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds

Advertising Agencies Association of India, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption ), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assesseeITA No

ITA 2370/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, CAFor Respondent: ShriAmol Kirtane (CIT-DR.)

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 263

submitted that no prejudice is caused to the revenue pursuant to the assessment order u/s 143(3) passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre [NFAC" for short] because the entire exemption u/s 11 as claimed by the Assessee [the Appellant herein] has been denied by the Assessing Officer ... justified [Ref. CIT v/s Thangamaligai - (2003) 259 ITR 129 (Madras) last but one paragraph] 10. PROPOSITION 10: An order passed by the national faceless assessment Centre is not subject to revision since the same is a result of team- based assessment. Ref: M/s Agrani Buildestate v/s PCIT-ITA 205/JP/2023

India Property (Mauritius) Company II, Mauritius vs. ACIT, Circle Int. Taxation 2(1)(1), New Delhi

ITA 1020/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharma

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 234ASection 90(2)

Super Brands Ltd. (UK) v. ADIT ([2023] 147 taxmann.com 323 (Delhi - Trib.) and Jodhpur Bench in the case of Hindustan Zinc Limited v. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (ITA Nos. 127 & 128/JODHI2022) (Jodhpur- Trib.) Ld. Sr. Counsel also pointed out that the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in its recent

Anil Firojiya, Bhakt Nagar, Ujjain vs. Dy Commisioner of Income Tax, Ujjain

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 416/IND/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore12 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Anil Firojiya, Dy. Commissioner Of 6, Bhakt Nagar, Income-Tax, बनाम/ Dashera Maidan, Assessment Unit, Vs. Ujjain New Delhi (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaipf7302A Assessee By Shri Manoj Fadnis, Ca Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 12.07.2024

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

assessee also filed following additional ground: “In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. ITO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC).Delhi has erred in passing the order u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961, without obtaining prior approval

Goodwill Team Papers Limited, Madurai vs. ACIT Non Corporate Circle 2, Madurai

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

ITA 813/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 813/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2017-18

For Appellant: Shri J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Suresh, JCIT

Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 271BSection 44A

Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060617906(1) dated 07.02.2024. The assessment was framed by the Addl./Joint/Deputy/Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax /Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide order dated 29.03.2022. The impugned