← All Phrases

“national faceless assessment centre”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B1,082 judgments

The decision most relied on for national faceless assessment centre is Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras (169 Taxmann.com 542), cited in 50 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on national faceless assessment centre

Mark Studio India (P.) Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, High Court of Madras
169 Taxmann.com 542 · 2024 · High Court
50
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).

Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT
174 Taxmann.com 1203 · 2025 · High Court
43
citing judgments

Where the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) and the Joint Assessing Officer (JAO) have concurrent jurisdiction, a notice issued by the JAO under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act is valid, provided no prejudice is caused to the assessee.

Judgments citing national faceless assessment centre

Central Bank of India, Mumbai vs. NFAC, CIT(Appeal), Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 2045/MUM/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri R A Dhyani, (CIT DR)
Section 115JSection 129Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 52

shot, ‘the Act) for the Assessment Year 2016- 17, date of order 24/06/2022. The impugned order was emanated from the order of National Faceless Assessment Centre(NFAC), Delhi (in short, ‘the Ld.AO’) passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, date of order dated 20/03/2022. 2. We heard the rival

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1369/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

parte assessment orders dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Sneha Pawan Agarwal, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1368/AHD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Makarand V.Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Sulabh Padshah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Veerabadram Vislavath, Sr.DR
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 253(3)Section 253(5)

parte assessment orders dated 28.03.2022 passed by the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], under section 147 read with section 144 and section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Suresh Auto Deal, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3(1), Kalyan

In the result, appeal of the assessee is disallowed

ITA 4067/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Smt.Renu Jauhrisuresh Auto Deal Vs. Income-Tax Officer Plot No. A-129, Opp Ward 3(1), Kalyan Auditorium, Midc, 421301. Dombivali-421201. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Abdfs7872A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary- Sr. AR
Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Assessment Unit at the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) in disallowing sales promotion P a g e | 2 expenses Rs 46,94,812 paid

Harmit Kaur, Yamunanagar vs. ITO, Ward-3, Yamunanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 981/CHANDI/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh15 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Avneet Singh &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 151A

reassessment proceedings lacked authority in view of CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 issued under section 151A of the Act, whereby the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NPAC) alone was empowered to issue and process such notices. 3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Jurisdictional AO, Ward ... apply “from the stage of issuance of notice under sections 148 and 148A” and that such proceedings shall be carried out through the National Faceless Assessment Centre. 8.1 The Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in Jatinder Singh Bhangu (supra) and Satpal Kaur (supra) has categorically held that issuance

Honeywell Exim Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-10(1), Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed”

ITA 6033/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16 Honeywell Exim Private Vs. Acit, Limited, House No. 121, Circle-10(1), A Pkt., B-04, Keshavpuram. Delhi New Delhi-1100 35 1100 07 Pan: Aadch3719B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Adv. , Shri Pawan Garg and Ms. Ishika Dua, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Kaushal, CIT (DR)
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Santosh Rathore, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore - 1, Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 451/IND/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Indore14 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

PCIT”] u/s 263 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 24.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the act for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2015-16, the assessee has filed this appeal on following grounds ... exercising the provisions of Section 263 of the Act in respect of the reassessment order dated 24.03.2022 has been passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘the Ld. NaFAC’) and the jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act cannot be exercised in respect of Order passed by the Ld. NaFAC

Jashwantbhai Mahijibhai Baria, Panchmahal vs. ITO, Ward 1, Godhra

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

ITA 1585/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sudhakar Verma, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 153CSection 270ASection 69

Asst. Year : 2019-20 - 2– 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of learned AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre (“the AO”) in passing the order which is invalid in law and therefore liable to be quashed. Without prejudice to the above: Invalid

Incometax Officer, Ward-3(1), Visakhapatnam vs. Surendra Nath Gubbala, Visakhapatnam

ITA 482/VIZ/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Us:

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 48

revenue has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2.1. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs.9

Rajendraa Sakunthala, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Ncc-2, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1624/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Sudharshan, Advocate for Shri. S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 50C

order u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to :-2-: ITA. No.:1624 /Chny/2025 as “the Act”) passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [hereinafter referred to as the “AO”] dated 24.03.2023. 2. At the threshold, we observe that there is a delay of 34 days

Achala Punja, Teynampet vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Non Corporate Circle 3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1483/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai09 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: Shri. R. M. Narayanan, C.AFor Respondent: Shri. R. Raghupathy, Addl. C.I.T
Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 54

dated 28.03.2022 passed u/s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred to as “the Act”] passed :-2-: ITA. No.:1483/Chny/2025 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “AO”] for the Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal

Viswanathan Pappathi, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward-2, Vellore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1620/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R.Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1620/Chny/2025 िनधा#रण वष# / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Viswanathan Pappathi Income Tax Officer No. 24C, Pudupet Road, Vs. Ward – 2, 4Th Street, Tirupattur, Vellore. Vellore – 635 601. Tamil Nadu. [Pan: Ceqpp-4595-H] (अपीलाथ%/Appellant) (&'थ%/Respondent) अपीलाथ% की ओर से/Appellant By : Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate &'थ% की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T.

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. N. Rajakumar, Addl. C.I.T
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Income Tax :-3-: ITA. No:1620/Chny/2025 Officer, Ward 2, Vellore. Thereafter, the assessment is completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, by making an addition of Rs.76,40,000/- u/s.69A as unexplained money u/.69A and a demand of Rs.65,02,900/- was raised. Aggrieved ... erroneous, since it makes no difference to the validity of the reopening notice, whether it is the jurisdictional Assessing Officer or the National Faceless Assessment Centre and prayed that the appeal be dismissed. She :-4-: ITA. No:1620/Chny/2025 further relied upon para 8 of the order the Hon’ble jurisdictional

Jagdish Solanki, Jhabua vs. Income Tax Officer Jhabua, Jhabua

ITA 169/IND/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 26.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 956/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

with Section 144B, unequivocally requires that such notices be issued only by an authority selected through an automated process and routed through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). In the present case, the failure to adhere to this prescribed procedure renders the notice legally unsustainable and vitiates the entire reassessment

Tigerhill Tradelink Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 10(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Appellant is Dismissed

ITA 955/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Oct 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 250Section 271BSection 68

with Section 144B, unequivocally requires that such notices be issued only by an authority selected through an automated process and routed through the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). In the present case, the failure to adhere to this prescribed procedure renders the notice legally unsustainable and vitiates the entire reassessment

J P Morgan Services India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 4781/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Beena Pillai & Smt. Renu Jauhrij P Morgan Services India Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited (‘The Income-Tax, Circle 2(2)(1) Appellant’) Aayakar Bhawan, Tower A Blk 9, Tower B Blk Maharishi Karve Road, 10, Tower C Blk 11, Nirlon New Marine Lines, Knowledge Park, Western Churchgate, Express Highway, Goregaon Mumbai-400020. East, Mumbai Suburban, 400063. स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aabcd0503B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Fenil BhattFor Respondent: Ms. Neena Jeph (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 92D

order') passed under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) read with section 144B of the Act dated 22 July 2024 by Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department (Ld. AO') and directions issued under section 144C(5) of the Act dated 27 June

Ebay Singapore Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT (It) 2(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2378/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai30 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Smt. Renu Jauhri ()

Section 143(2)Section 253

income. 2. a) the learned AO has erred in carrying out assessment proceedings initiated by National e-Assessment Centre (now known as National Faceless Assessment Centre) by issuance of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, which was without jurisdiction and accordingly, the assessment be treated ... adjudicate the additional ground filed by the Appellant in connection with lack of jurisdiction of National e-Assessment Centre (now known as National Faceless Assessment Centre) to issue notice under section 143(2) of the Act. 3. the learned DRP/ the learned AO have erred in denying the entitlement

Milanben Narendra Choksi, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(3), Surat

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

ITA 404/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Suchitrta Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.404/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Hybrid Hearing) Milanben Narendra Choksi Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(3), बनाम/ Mu, Wd.No.3/628, Navapura Surat, Room No.118, First Floor, Vs. Karva Road, Surat-395 003 Aaykar Bhawan, Near Majura Gate, Opp. Civil Hospital, Surat- 395001 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aappc 8557 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Sapnesh R. Sheth, Advocate राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 19/08/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 26/09/2025

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 145Section 250

Delhi/ Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), [in short, ‘NFAC/CIT(A)’] for assessment year (AY) 2017-18, which in turn assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Assessing Officer (in short, “AO”) u/s 144 of the Act on 27.12.2019. 2. The ground of appeal raised by the assessee

Shanmugasundaram Venkatachalapathy, Tirunelveli, Tamilnadu vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Tirunelveli

In the result, grounds of appeal raised

ITA 2056/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Chennai26 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayshri Shanmugasundaram I.T.O., Venkatachalapathy, Vs. Ward-4, C/O-Durv & Associates Llp, No. Tirunelveli. 10/80, Avm Avenue 3Rd Street, Virugambakkam, Chennai-600092 (Tamil Nadu) Pan No. Acapv 3414 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

dated 07/11/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 by raising following grounds of appeal: “1. The orders of the learned Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('Learned AO') and Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, New Delhi ['CIT(A)'] are erroneous & bad in law and contrary

Nashit Suhail Anshari, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 30(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4416/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing)

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 254(1)

No.4416/Mum/025 NashitSuhail Ansari IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical hearing) Nashit Suhail Ansari National Faceless Assessment Centre / C 1/3, Kailashchandra CHS Ltd Vs Income-tax Officer, Wad 30(1)(1) Mahindra Nagar Dayabhai Patel Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra (E), Road, Malad