“national faceless assessment centre”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B1,082 judgments

DCIT-4(1), INDORE, INDORE vs. RAJAT SUREKA, INDORE

The appeal is allowed

ITA 426/IND/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore20 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2014-15 Dcit 4(1), Rajat Sureka, Indore D-41, Hig Colony, बनाम/ A.B. Road, Vs. Indore (Revenue/Appellant) (Assessee/Respondent) Pan: Aksps7189J Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Subhash Chandra, Ar Date Of Hearing 19.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69Section 69C

Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 08.09.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2014-15, the revenue has filed this appeal

MANOJ RAJARAM SHARMA,THANE vs. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 8313/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmanoj Rajaram Ito - 42(3)(4), Sharma, Mumbai Office No. 615, 6Th Vs. Kautilya Bhawan, C- Floor, Centura Square 41-43, Avenue 3, Near It Park, Sg Barve Videsh Bhavan, G Road, Thane, Block, Bkc, Mumbai Maharashtra-400 604. – 400 051. Pan/Gir No. Bytps1944K (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Suryadev Yadav, Shri Karan Hariya & Shri Prashant Gupta, Ld. Ars Revenue By Shri Bhagirath Ramawat, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 17.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 272A(1)(d)Section 4Section 44A

Commissioner erred in upholding the incorrect levy of interest under Sections 234A, 234B, and 234D of the Act, as considered by the Learned National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) failed to appreciate that the Appellant never

MAHESH PRAKASH BENDE,MUMBAI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER CIRCLE 27(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 8028/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmahesh Prakash Ito Circle - 27(2), Bende 4Th Floor, Tower No. 6, 302, 3Rd Floor, Prithvi Vs. It Office, Vashi Park, Sector-30, Vashi Railway Station Navi Mumbai-400 075 Building, Navi Mubmai – 400 703 Pan/Gir No. Alnpb2531M (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Devendra Jain, Ld. Ar Revenue By Shri Annavaram Kosuri, Ld. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 20.03.2026

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 249Section 249(3)Section 250

compliance was made by the assessee. Subsequently, notices under section 142(1) were issued calling for details. The case was transferred to the National Faceless Assessment Centre under the Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Despite service of notices, including through the Verification Unit, no response was received from the assessee. Thereafter

AMAZON SMART COMMERCE SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED,DELHI vs. PRINCIPAL COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, DELHI-1, DELHI

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 40A(2)

liable to be quashed.\n2. That the PCIT erred in invoking revisionary jurisdiction under section 263 of the Act qua assessment completed by National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC') under section 143(3) read with sections 144C(3) and 144B of the Act, which is a complete code in itself

DCM SHRIRAM LIMITED,DELHI vs. ASSESSMENT UNIT, DELHI

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

ITA 5560/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Challa Nagemdra Prasad & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80ISection 92C

made in the final assessment order, which are agitated by the appellant before us in the following grounds of appeal. “1. That the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NaFAC")/Ld. Assessing Officer ("AO") has erred in law and on facts and in the circumstances of the assessee's case in making

RUPINDER SINGH DUGGAL,AHMEDABAD vs. THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1921/AHD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: DR. BRR Kumar (Vice President), Shri T. R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 192Section 54Section 80C

facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the notice under section 148 issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is without jurisdiction, being contrary to the procedure prescribed under the E- Assessment of Income Escaping Assessment Scheme, 2022, notified vide CBDT

INCOME TAX OFFICER, COIMBATORE vs. SIVAKUMAR SATHYAPRIYA, COIMBATORE

ITA 4107/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

Section 130Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 confer concurrent jurisdiction to both the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) / National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), and the faceless assessment scheme does not explicitly prohibit the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer from issuing such notices? M. Whether the CIT(A) is right ... without considering the entire legislative intent, which allows for concurrent jurisdiction between the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) and the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) / National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)?” 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the respondent assessee is an Individual. No regular Return of Income under

BHUMI POLYMERS PRIVATE LIMITED,RAJKOT vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(1)(1), RAJKOT

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 755/RJT/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot12 Mar 2026AY 2023-24

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 36(1)Section 37(1)Section 40Section 44A

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant, a private limited company, is\nassessed to tax by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. It is engaged in\nthe business of manufacturing and trading of all types of sprinkler pipes and\ncouplers, drip irrigation system, underlying dripper system and mini sprinkler

INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD -2, WARDHA, WARDHA vs. PADMAKAR KRUSHNAJI WARBHE, HINGANGHAT

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 377/NAG/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur12 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 254(1)Section 40A(3)

memorandum of appeal of revenue, the assessee filed\nhis Cross Objections raising following grounds,\n(1) That the order of the learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) Delhi\npassed u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B is bad in law and wrong on facts and the learned CIT(A)\nis justified in deleting

INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 22(1), CHENNAI vs. EZHUMALAI, THIRUKAZHUKUNDRAM

ITA 4108/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri George George K, Vice- & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.4108/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2019-20 Income Tax Officer, V Ezhumalai, Non Corporate Ward- S 1123, Ponpatharkoodam, 22(1), Tambaram Gangai Amman Koil Street, Thirukazhukundram, Chengalpattu – 603405 Pan: Acipe8113C Appellant/ Revenue Respondent / Assessee Assessee By None Revenue By Ms. V Aswathy – Jcit Date Of Hearing 18/02/2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12/03/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Inturi Rama Rao, Am : This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Directed Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi

Section 120Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

right in quashing the notice u/s 148, when the fact remains that as per Sec. 1448(116) of the Act, the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall assign the case selected for the purposes of faceless assessment under this section to a specific assessment unit through an automated allocation system indicating ... that the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) comes into play only when a case is "selected" and that the power of issue of notice u/s 148 is not within the ambit of the provisions and rests with the non- NFAC officer viz. the JAO? ITA No.4108/CHNY/2025 [D] (iv) Whether

M/S. HL MANDO ANAND INDIA PVT. LTD.,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORP. CIRCLE-1(4), CHENNAI

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2088/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy.S & Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2088/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Mr. Vikram Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144B(1)(xi)Section 144B(1)(xix)Section 144B(1)(xvi)Section 250Section 35

before finalising the assessment when it is not an eligible assessee. Thus, it is clear that due procedure has been followed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. The case law relied on by the appellant in Prakash Chand Jain supra is rendered on different facts and circumstances. In that case ... examined. The Ld. AR in this regard drew our attention to the relevant provisions of section 144B of the Act: “(xvi) the National Faceless Assessment Centre shall examine the draft assessment order in accordance with the risk management strategy specified by the Board, including by way of an automated examination

TAEGUTEC INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED ,BANGALORE vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-7(1)(1), BANGALORE

In the result Appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed directing the Assessing

ITA 2265/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Smt. Tanmayee Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Date of Hearing

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Assessee against the Assessment Order dated 28.11.2023 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi (the AO) was dismissed as infructuous. 2. The Assessee is in appeal before us wherein the Assessee has raised a ground

SUMANTO PAUL,DELHI vs. THE ASSESSING OFFICER , INCOME TAX DEPARTMENT

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

ITA 8755/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Amitabh Shuklaassessment Year: 2016-17 Sumanto Paul, Vs The Assessing Officer, 139, Kohat Enclave, Assessment Unit, Pitampur, Income Tax Department, Delhi – 110 034. New Delhi. Pan: Aajpp4082C

For Appellant: Ms Shruti Gupta, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Nitin Kumar Jaiman, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) arising out of the penalty order dated 21.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as ‘the ld. AO’) under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The assessee has come

DATTATRAY VITHOBA SAWANT,KALYAN vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WD-42(2)(2), MUMBAI

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

ITA 6080/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai10 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Hon’Ble Shri Prabhash Shankardattatray Vithoba Sawant Vs. Income Tax Officer, Wd- D7, 1103, Rounak City, 42(2)(2) Sector-4, Khadakpada, Kautilya Bhavan, Kalyan-West, Kalyan- Bandra Kurla Complex, 421301 Mumbai-400051 Pan/Gir No. Aclps7508Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Jay Thakkar Revenue By Shri Brajendra Kumar (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing 10.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 10.03.2026 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 28.07.2025 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For The Assessment Year 2015-16. The Following Grounds Are Reproduced Below: “Additional Grounds Raised For The 1" Time 1.0 On Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Re-Assessment Order Passed U/S.147 Dated 21/09/2021 By National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac) Is Bad-In- Law, Since The Scheme For Faceless Assessment Of Income

Section 144BSection 147Section 151ASection 250Section 80CSection 80G

time 1.0 On facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the re-assessment order passed u/s.147 dated 21/09/2021 by National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is bad-in- law, since the Scheme for Faceless assessment of income 2 Dattatray Vithoba Sawant escaping assessment prescribed u/s.151A had been notified

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 2(2), CHENNAI, CHENNAI vs. OASYS CYBERMATICS PVT LTD, CHENNAI

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

ITA 3102/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mr. ARV Srinivasan, CIT for Mr. Bipin C. N., CITFor Respondent: Mr. Ravi Kannan &

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 36(1)(va)Section 5(3)

reasons recorded for reopening. The assessee raised objections to the reopening vide letter dated 31.08.2021 which came to be rejected by :: 3 :: the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) vide order dated 22.12.2021. 5. Aggrieved by the rejection of objections, the assessee filed a writ petition before the Hon’ble High

EASWARAMURTHY PRAKASH,COIMBATORE vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), TIRUPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2247/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Suraj Nahar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl.CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 44A

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld.CIT(A)”), arising from the assessment order dated 02.01.2025 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) u/s.144 r.w.s 254 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

NOBEL AUTOMOTIVE INDIA PRIVATE LIMITED,KANCHEEPURAM vs. DCIT, CORP CIRCLE 4(1), CHENNAI

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

ITA 2009/CHNY/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Bipin C.N, CITFor Respondent: 19.01.2026

Section 143(3)Section 40

Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld.CIT(A)”), arising from the assessment order dated 26.03.2024 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) u/s.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the Assessment

VALUELABS LLP,HYDERABAD vs. DCIT., CENTRAL CIRCLE 8(1), HYDERABAD

In the result, we uphold the order passed by the CIT(A) and\ndismiss the assessee's appeal

ITA 1609/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad06 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

For Appellant: \nShri P. Murali Mohan, CAFor Respondent: \nMs. U. Mini Chandran

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 2(24)(xviii)Section 250Section 80

ntaxmann.com 206 (Madras); (ii) ACIT vs. M/s. Indsil Hydro Power &\nManganese Ltd, ITA No.3491/Chny/2018, dated 09/08/2021; and (iii)\nSatia Industries Ltd vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, New\nDelhi (2023) 151 taxmann.com 358 (Amritsar-Trib), therefore, we shall\ndeal with the same, as under:\n(A). CIT vs. Ambika Cotton Mills

M/S. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15(3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8172/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Years 2013-14, 2014-15 and 2016-17 date of all the orders 26.09.2025. The impugned orders emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as "Ld. AO"), order passed u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order

M/S. SUPREME INFRASTRUCTURE INDIA LIMITED ,MUMBAI vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 15 (3)(2), MUMBAI , MUMBAI

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee bearing ITA Nos

ITA 8171/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Ms. Vinita Shah (Virtually appear)For Respondent: Shri. Sanjeev Bhagat Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Showing 1–20 of 1,082 · Page 1 of 55

...