“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

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

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

Mahant Pandey, Rohtas vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 181/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

Aamya Resources LLP, Andheri East vs. ITO, Ward 24(1)(1) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 4423/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai21 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Om Prakash Kantvs. Ito, Ward 24(1)(1) Aamya Resources Llp Piramal Chamber, 1, Wilson House, Old Mumbai – 400012. Nagardas Road, Andheri (E), Mumbai – 400069. Pan/Gir No. Abcfa4651A (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Satish Aggarwal (Virtually Appear) Revenue By Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 21.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 24.09.2025 आदेश / Order Per Sandeep Gosain, Jm: The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Challenging The Impugned Order 11.10.2019 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’), By The National Faceless Appeal Centre / Cit(A), Mumbai For The Assessment Year 2015- 16. 2. Although, Assessee Had Raised Number Of Grounds In The Present Appeal But At The Outset Ld. Ar Pressed Ground No.4 Which Is Legal In Question & It Goes To The Roots Of The Case. Therefore, We Have Decided To Adjudicate This Ground Firstly, Ground No. 4, Which Is Reproduced Herein Below:

Section 148Section 149Section 151Section 250Section 3(1)

taken; approval granted by Principal Commissioner could not be termed as valid/legal approval. 7 Aamya Resources LLP, Mumbai (iii) Aakruti Ketan Mehta Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, [[2025] 173 taxmann.com 265 (Mumbai - Trib.) (Copy of Judgement enclosed in paper Book at page no. 54-59) Where notice under section ... ACIT [2025] 173 taxmann.com 182 (Mumbai - Trib.) 4. DCIT Vs. SS Jewellery [2025] 173 taxmann.com 189 (Mumbai - Trib.) 5. Aakruti Ketan Mehta Vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, [[2025] 173 taxmann.com 265 (Mumbai - Trib.) 9 Aamya Resources LLP, Mumbai 6. Cipla Pharma and Life Sciences Ltd. vs DCIT [2024] 164 taxmann.com

Sunil Kumar, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Faridabad

ITA 957/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Praveen Kumar Misra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr

Section 142(1)Section 147

order dated 15.09.2021 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. Heard and perused the record. The issue arises out of addition ... consideration was received towards the transfer of property. Same are also relied before us. The assessment was framed ex parte by the National Faceless Assessment Centre vide order dated 15.09.2021 and ld. ClT(Appeals) sustained the addition of Rs.1,40,00,0000/- holding that: “5.1.2…… the claim of the assessee

Microad India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle - 16(2), Delhi

Appeals is allowed

ITA 4714/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Anubhav Sharma

For Appellant: Sh. Nikhil Khanna, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vipul Kashyap, Sr. DR

Section 165Section 195Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 40

/Del/2024 Microad India Pvt. Ltd. passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the ld. AO) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that

Abbobacker Siddieque, Malappuram vs. ITO, Ward 1& Tps, Tirur

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

ITA 537/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Aboobacker Siddieque .......... Appellant Kundupuzhakkal House, Cherur Post Malappuram 676304 [Pan: Dzaps6853P] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-1 & Tps, Tirur .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shaji Paulose, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025

For Appellant: Shri Shaji Paulose, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu, S., Sr. DR

Section 12A(1)(ac)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 282(1)Section 69C

information that the appellant made cash deposit, in bank account aggregating to Rs. 2 Aboobacker Siddieque 1,15,72,700/- the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Act on 24.03.2021. The appellant neither complied with the notice issued

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 534/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

that the appellant made cash deposits aggregating to Rs. 1,06,67,283/- and also withdrawn cash from the current account consideration, the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO") issued a notice u/s. 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) on 24.03.2021. The appellant neither complied

Kamaludheen Fathima, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Guruvayoor

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 525/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Hiran C., CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

Jihas Abduljaleel, Kollam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2, Kollam

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

ITA 523/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jihas Abduljaleel .......... Appellant Shihas Manzil, Kannamkode, Kummil Post, Kollam [Pan: Blypa6333C] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2, Kollam .......... Respondent Assessee By: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, Ca Revenue By: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.08.2025 O R D E R Per: Inturi Rama Rao, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Dated 23.05.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That That Appellant Is An Individual, Engaged In The Business Of Livestock. No Regular Return Of Income For Ay 2016-17 Was Filed By The Appellant. Therefore, The Ao Issued Notice U/S. 148 & 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act), Which Remained Uncomplied With By The Appellant. Subsequently

For Appellant: Shri Shakunth Selvaraj, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neethu S., Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(b)

Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act), which remained uncomplied with by the appellant. Subsequently, 2 Jihas Abduljaleel the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO") completed the assessment u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Therefore, the AO issued notice

Suresh Kumar Mahavir Prasad Beswal, Thane vs. Assessment Unit, NFAC

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5156/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Justice (Retd.) C V Bhadang & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Piyush Chhajed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhary, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250Section 69A

dated 29/03/2022, the issuance of notice under Section 148 after 29/03/2022 should only be done by the Faceless Assessing Officer (FAO) from the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC). Therefore, the issuance of the notice by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer is without jurisdiction and should be quashed. 2. The Learned Jurisdictional

Aashita Garg, Nabha, Patiala vs. Jao the Income Tax Officer Ward Nabha, Patiala

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 539/CHANDI/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh18 Aug 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Miss Pallavi, Advocate and Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 148Section 148ASection 151A

void ab initio, as the notice under section 148 was issued by the Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (JAO) instead of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), which is in violation of the mandatory procedure prescribed under Section 144B and Section 151A of the Act, vide notification No. CBDT Notification No. 18/2022/F

India Japan Lighting Private Limited, Chennai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax - 4, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1427/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri Amitabh Shuklaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1427/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 V. M/S. India Japan Lighting Pvt. Ltd., The Pcit-4, No.1, Tiruvallur High Road, Chennai. Puduchatram B.O., Thirumazhisai, Tiruvallur-600 124. [Pan: Aaaci 2673 L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 263

interests of the revenue'. 3. The Learned PCIT has erred in law by not appreciating the fact that the Learned Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('AO') passed the assessment order after examining all details that were called for by the Learned AO and duly submitted by the Appellant

Yasmeen Shaikh, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(5), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1264/BANG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Prakash Chand Yadavassessmentyear:2015-16 Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh, Income Tax Officer, 3093, Sobha Carnation, Ward-5(3)(5), Bellandur Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Bellandur, Vs. Bengaluru-560103. Pan No : Aovps3088K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate Respondent By : Sri Ganesh R Ghale, Advocate-Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing : 18.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.08.2025 O R D E R Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote: This Is An Appeal Filed By Mrs. Yasmeen Shaikh Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(Appeals) (Nfac) Passed U/S. 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”) For Asst Year 2015-16 On 18/03/2025 Emanating From Assessment Order Dated 25/01/2023 Passed U/S. 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Orders Of The Authorities Below, Insofar As They Are Against The Appellant, Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Ld.Cit(A)/Nfac Erred In Disposing Off The Appeal Holding That The Appellant Has Not Complied

For Appellant: Ms. Sunain Bhatia, Advocate

Section 147Section 250Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 69

Shaikh vs. ITO Page 3 of 5 Submission of Ld. DR: 4. The Ld. DR relied on the order of the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre. 5. Findings and Analysis: We have heard both the parties and perused the records. On a perusal of the order

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 902/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

ruling of Hon’ble Madras High Court in . ITA No.901 & 902/Bang/2025 Page 10 of 17 the case of Mrs. R Chitra vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre reported in 164 taxmann.com 134 or 474 ITR 78 where it was held as under: “7. Based on the rival submissions, the first issue

Kalkere Puttaraju Vajramunie, Royal Hermitage, Kalkere B.O, Kalkere vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle 1(4) Bangalore, Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 901/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Soundararajan K

For Appellant: Shri Siddesh N Gaddi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Balusamy N, JCIT (DR)

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 69B

Narendrakumar Lalchand Jain, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4226/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Aug 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Omkareshwar Chidaranarendrakumar Lalchand Jain Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward 19(2)(4), C/O G.P. Mehta & Co, Cas Mumbai. Piramal Chambers, 6Th Floor, 807, Tulsiani Chambers, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400 Parel, Mumbai-400 012 021 Pan: Acwpj4288P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.P. MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, Sr Ar

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 275Section 275(1)(c)Section 68

short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2012-13, date of order 08/05/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (for brevity, ‘Ld. AO’) passed under section 271(1)(b) of the Act, date of order 01/03/2022. 2 ITA 4226/Mum /2025 Narendrakumar Lalchand Jain

Thrissur District NRI Service Co-Operative Society, Thrissur vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as premature

ITA 909/COCH/2024[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Aug 2025AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Sonjoy Sarma

Section 119(2)(b)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69ASection 80P(2)(a)

No.909/COCH/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Thrissur District NRI Service Co-operative Society…….…......…..….……….Appellant N P Tower, Poothole, Kerala – 680004. [PAN:AAEAT6988M] vs. ITO, NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE.......……...…..…..Respondent Appearances by: Shri Sathish John Kanichai, CA, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR, appeared on behalf

Sandeep Natani, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Jaipur

Appeal is disposed of, for statistical purposes, and while setting aside the impugned order passed by

ITA 884/JPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Learned Cit(A), While Challenging Assessment Order Dated 21.03.2022, Passed By The Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, Relating To The Assessment Year 2015-16. Said Appeal Came To Be Dismissed By Learned Cit(A), Nfac, On 19.03.2025, Thereby Sustaining The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 148Section 69A

Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member Assessee was in appeal before Learned CIT(A), while challenging assessment order dated 21.03.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2015-16. Said appeal came to be dismissed by Learned CIT(A), NFAC, on 19.03.2025, thereby sustaining

Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Parbhani vs. ITO, Ward- Hingoli, Hingoli

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

ITA 781/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune12 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.781/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Rajesh Baburao Shinde, Vs. Assessment Unit, Income Sayala Khating, Tq. Dist. Tax Department, Nfac, Parbhani- 431402. Delhi. Pan : Czcps6546Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi Revenue By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.08.2025 : आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 18.07.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Affidavit For Condonation That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. RathiFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 142(1)Section 145Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69A

circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in confirming the addition made by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ['the Ld. AO'] of ₹ 51,11,900/- u/s 69A of the Act. 4.2 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Tata Motors Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 3(4), Mumbai

ITA 3511/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Aug 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Hon'Ble & Shri Arun Khodpia, Hon'Ble

Section 115BSection 115JSection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 250Section 32A

which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing officer (in short "Ld. AO"), National Faceless Assessment Centre, u/s 147 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act (In short "The Act") dated 30.03.2022, for both the aforesaid assessment years. 2 Both the aforesaid appeals pertain to the same assessee

Unique Mercantile India Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax Ahmedabad - 3, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 748/AHD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Vartik Chokshi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

proceeding under section 148 of the Act and that the reassessment had concluded with no additions, as per the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. However, Principal CIT rejected this line of argument. Principal CIT held that the AO did not ask any relevant questions or verify