← 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

H. K. Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2678/DEL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13 H.K. Infrabuild Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income Tax Officer, 486/1, Ist Floor, Gali Rajan Kalan Ward 11(1), Kishmiri Gate, New Delhidelhi Delhi – 1100 06 Pan :Aacch7941N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 330/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us :

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

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 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there is an information with ... appeal before us : 17 ITA Nos.329 and 330/Viz/2025 & C.O.36 and 37/Viz/2025 Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre 2. The Ld.CITIA) failed

Incometax Officer, Tanuku vs. Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti, Thimmarajupalem

ITA 329/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam26 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: us : “1. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law.

For Appellant: Shri GVN Hari, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri MN Murthy Naik
Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

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 The Ld.CIT(A) failed to appreciate the fact that there is an information with ... appeal before us : 17 ITA Nos.329 and 330/Viz/2025 & C.O.36 and 37/Viz/2025 Venkata Surya Durga Raju Koppisetti “1. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) is erroneous both on facts and in law. The order of the Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Assessment Centre 2. The Ld.CITIA) failed

Sarojamma, Ramanagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ramanagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 43/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Gokul, Advocate
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 253(5)Section 69A

28th July 2022. The assessment was transferred to faceless assessment centre in the manner provided under section 144B of the Act. However, the national faceless assessment centre transferred back the case to the Jurisdictional AO under section 144B(8) of the Act. Thereafter, the JAO issued several notices which were

Shri. Ganesh Agencies, Bidar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1829/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subramaniam, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

appeal Centre, Delhi (the learned CIT – A) dated 10/6/2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the national faceless assessment Centre, Delhi under section 144 read with section 147 of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 30/3/2022, was allowed. 2. Briefly stated

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bidar vs. Shri Ganesh Agencies, Bidar

In the result both the appeals are dismissed

ITA 1476/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2017-18

For Respondent: Shri Subramaniam, Jt. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 142Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 44ASection 69

appeal Centre, Delhi (the learned CIT – A) dated 10/6/2024 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed by the national faceless assessment Centre, Delhi under section 144 read with section 147 of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) dated 30/3/2022, was allowed. 2. Briefly stated

M/S. International Specialty Products (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3255/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri P.V.S.S. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. DR
Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 92C

against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 56, Mumbai, vide order no. ITBA/APL/S/250/2025- 26/1075621948(1), dated 15/04/2025 passed against the penalty order by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”), dated 29.01.2022 for Assessment Year

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2524/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Assessment Year : 2015–16) ITA No. 2519/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Apex Education Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop No. 5 to 8, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bhoomi Arcade, ITO 33(1)(1), Atmaram Sawant Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Kandivali East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAOFA6845R

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2523/MUM/2025[2016-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2016-15
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Solutions Shop No. 5 to 8, Bhoomi Arcade, Atmaram Sawant Marg, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. PAN No. AAOFA6845R (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, ITO 33(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Jagdish Shetty Revenue by Shri. Surendra Mohan

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2522/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2012-13
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Solutions Shop No. 5 to 8, Bhoomi Arcade, Atmaram Sawant Marg, Kandivali East, Mumbai-400101. PAN No. AAOFA6845R (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, ITO 33(1)(1), Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400051. (Respondent) Assessee by Shri. Jagdish Shetty Revenue by Shri. Surendra Mohan

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2521/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2014-15
Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Assessment Year : 2016-17) ITA No. 2519/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Apex Education Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop No. 5 to 8, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bhoomi Arcade, ITO 33(1)(1), Atmaram Sawant Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Kandivali East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAOFA6845R

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2520/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Assessment Year : 2016-17) ITA No. 2519/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Apex Education Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop No. 5 to 8, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bhoomi Arcade, ITO 33(1)(1), Atmaram Sawant Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Kandivali East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAOFA6845R

Apex Education Solutions, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 33(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 2519/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (Accountant Member)

Section 148Section 271BSection 273BSection 44A

Assessment Year : 2015–16) ITA No. 2519/MUM/2025 (Assessment Year : 2017–18) Apex Education Solutions Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop No. 5 to 8, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Bhoomi Arcade, ITO 33(1)(1), Atmaram Sawant Marg, Kautilya Bhavan, Kandivali East, Bandra Kurla Complex, Mumbai-400101. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AAOFA6845R

Geeta Vashistha, Talwandi Bhai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -3 (1), Ferozepur

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

ITA 38/ASR/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar25 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Udayan Das Gupta & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2018-19]

Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 69B

BENCH, ‘DB’: AMRITSAR BEFORE SHRI UDAYAN DAS GUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2018-19] Geeta Vashistha, National Faceless Assessment Centre, SBR DAV Public School, Delhi-110001 Khosa Dal Singh Road, Vs Talwandi Bhai, Ferozepur, Punjab-142050 PAN-AKNPV0544K Appellant Respondent Appellant by None

Neha Diwan, Hindmotor vs. ITO Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

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

ITA 630/KOL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 115BSection 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

CBDT’s guidance to accommodate portal-related delays. 2. That the assessment order dated 31st March, 2022 passed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi under section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act and never served on the assessee determining ... unexplained and added to income. Thus, the assessee submits that the said assessment order dated 31.03.2022 passed by Ld. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 147 of the Act, which was never served on the assessee determining the total income of the assessee

Furshana Garments, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-11(3), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1177/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri Amitabh Shukla

For Appellant: Mr.N. Arjun Raj, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 3

reference to 'random allocation' has correctly been made as random allocation Furshana Garments :: 7 :: of cases to the Assessment Units by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. When random allocation is with reference to officer for reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section

Devendra Kumar, Noida vs. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 5784/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2016-17 Davendra Kumar, Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Vs. H. No. 52, Vill. Barola, Commissioner Of Income Tax, Sector 49, Noida, U.P. Delhi Pin: 201 301 Pan: Caipk0485M (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 57

Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of order dated 22.03.2022 of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO) under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Act passed for assessment year

Comfort Cool Systems, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 689/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Vice-A N D Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.689/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) M/S. Comfort Cool Systems Vs. Dy. Cit Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aaffc0969D Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Shashank Dundu, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 21/08/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/08/2025 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Shashank Dundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR
Section 147Section 250

under: “The present appeal arises from the order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B dated 29.09.2021 of the Income Tax Act (‘the Act’) by NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE, DELHI for the A.Y. 2010-11. The appeal in this case has been filed on 29.10.2021 as mentioned in form no. 35. Notices

Chahida Begam, Puducherry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Puducherry Range, Income Tax Office, Puducherry

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1219/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Mr.Hithesh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Anitha, Addl.CIT
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

reassessment proceedings, the reference to 'random allocation' has correctly been made as random allocation of cases to the Assessment Units by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. When random allocation is with reference to officer for reassessment then the same would equally apply for issuance of notice under Section

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 182/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna21 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271ASection 271FSection 272A(1)(d)

with regard to issue of notice u/s 143(2). 14. As per the recent judgement in the case of Mantra Industries Limited Vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC or NEAC) & Ors. (Bombay High Court) the Assessment orders passed without application of mind liable to be set aside and invite substantial