← 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

Rangaiah Ramanna, Tumakuru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Tumkur

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for

ITA 102/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore11 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Choudhry & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Monish SowkarFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Ld
Section 115BSection 250Section 271ASection 69A

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20/12/2023 impugned herein passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short ‘Ld. Commissioner’] u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act 1961 (in short

Hollister Medical India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 10(1), Delhi

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

ITA 5352/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Pareekhollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Dcit, C-8/7, Lawrence Road, Keshav Circle-10(1), Puram, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabch8555K

For Appellant: Ms. Anita Barur, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Veer Singh, CIT (DR)
Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 234CSection 41Section 41(1)

under section 43B of the Act 1.1 On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ('Ld. NFAC') has Hollister Medical India Pvt. Ltd erred in continuing the mistake that the Centralised Processing Unit ('CPC') made in not allowing

Areca Global Associates Private Limited, Guwahati vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Bengaluru

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 22/GTY/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: The

Section 154Section 250

Visvanathasastri held that income tax proceedings are quasi-judicial and must adhere to the principles of natural justice. Further, in Sanjay Aggarwal v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (Delhi High Court), it was reiterated that the assessee has a right to a fair hearing in cases of variation of income. Because

Pawan Communications Private Limited, Guwahati Assam vs. DCIT, Central Circle-2, Guwahati

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 283/GTY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: the learned Income Tax Appellate Tribunal [ITAT for short hereafter] expired on 17.05.2024. There is therefore a delay of about 211 (two hundred eleven) days or more till date in submitting the appeal before the said learned Tribunal.

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 250Section 253Section 36(1)(va)

Vehicle running expense 57,61,658 08 Late fees of GST 60,510/- During the course of assessment proceeding, the National Faceless Assessment Centre had issued notices u/s 142(1) on various dates requesting the assessee to produce/submit various documents to substantiate the above expenses. Later on a show cause ... very limited time (less than a day) was available with the assessee for submission of reply to the show cause issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, the additional evidence as submitted before the Ld. CIT(A) may be considered on merits. 1. Part 'B': Veracity and Merits

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bengaluru vs. Infosys Limited, Bengaluru

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed and the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 245/BANG/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2019-20

For Appellant: Sri Padam Chand Khincha – CAFor Respondent: Smt. Srinandini Das – CIT - DR
Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

were issued. After considering the submissions of the assessee, submissions through video conference and also material available on record, the National Faceless Assessment Centre passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022 assessing the total income of the assessee

Infosys Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 881/BANG/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Aug 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

Section 1Section 10ASection 155Section 250

were issued. After considering the submissions of the assessee, submissions through video conference and also material available on record, the National Faceless Assessment Centre passed the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Act dated 31.03.2022 assessing the total income of the assessee

Excel Telesonic India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

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

ITA 3572/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Prabhash Shankar

For Appellant: Shri Sharath RaoFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, SR DR
Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 234ASection 250Section 270ASection 36Section 36(1)(iii)Section 68

short, ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 26/03/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called ‘Ld.AO’) passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 14/09/2021. 2 ITA 3572/Mum /2025 Excel

ITO 41(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Deepika Anil Agarwal, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the revenue stands

ITA 1885/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Aug 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Sandeep Gosain& Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 132(4)Section 143Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 68

Abhishek Rajendrakumar Mundra ITA 3929/MUM/2024 55. ASHA HIMMAT BHADRA vs DCIT CIRCLE 32(1) ITA No. 2154/MUM/2024 56. RAJENDRA KUMAR MUNDRA (HUF) vs National Faceless Assessment Centre ITA No. 1000/MUM/2024 57. VARSHABEN LAHERIKANT BHADRA vs ITO 25(3)(1) ITA No. 1665/MUM/2024 FURTHER RELIANCE IS PLACED ON VARIOUS JUDGMENT WHERE

Prakashbhai Dhirubhai Thakkar, Rajkot vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 2(1), Rajkot

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 222/RJT/2025[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot05 Aug 2025AY 2007-08

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.222/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Ms. Devina Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumr Gupta, Sr-DR
Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 2(22)(e)Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)

Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short, “Ld.CIT(A”], dated 24.02.2025, which in turn arises out of an order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi/Assessing Officer u/s 147 r.w.s. 254 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, on 20.09.2021. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Padinjarethil Shamsudheen, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

ITA 358/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of Hearing: 13.06.2025
Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 1,06,14,500/- during the previous year relevant

Padinjarethil Shamsudheen, Palakkad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Palakkad

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

ITA 357/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin05 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Pathmanathan K.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 115BSection 12A(1)(ac)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 282(1)

filed by the appellant under the provisions of section 139(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act). The National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the AO"), based on the information that the appellant made cash deposit of Rs. 1,06,14,500/- during the previous year relevant

Mohan Hardasmal Tahilyani, Gandhidham vs. Incometax Officer Ward 1 Gandhidham, Gandhidham

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 176/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2025AY 2015-16
Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Mohan Hardash Thaliyani, Plot No. 113, NU-3, Apna Nagar, Gandhidham- 370201(Gujarat) Vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ Ward-1, Gandhidham, Income Tax Office, Plot No.32, Sector 3, Near IFFCO Colony, Gandhidham-370201 स्थायी लेखासं./जी आइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AFOPT

DCIT, Circle-5(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Blue Star Diamonds Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1375/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Aug 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Account Member & Shri Anikesh Banerjeedcit, Circle 5(1)(1), Mumbai Vs Blue Star Diamonds Pvt Ltd Ce-9010,9013, 9Th Floor, Tower-C, Room No.568, Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Bharat Diamond Bourse, Bkc, 400 020 Bandra (East), Mumbai-400 051 Pan: Aadcb6475E Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh Joshi & Ashwin KashinathFor Respondent: Shri Satyaprakash R. Singh, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 145(3)Section 14ASection 250

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2018-19, date of order 25/01/2024. The impugned order was emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”], passed under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 28/09/2021

Holy Spirit Educational Society Convent of Holy Spirit, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer(Exemptions) Ward-1, Bengaluru

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

ITA 965/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri A. Shankar, Sr
Section 11Section 13(1)(c)Section 13(3)(b)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 144B(1)(i)Section 144B(1)(iii)Section 147Section 148

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward — 1, Bengaluru and subsequent notices issued under section 142(1) of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre are without jurisdiction and contrary to the provisions of section 144B(1)(i) of the Act and further there is no communication as envisaged in section

Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

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

ITA 398/COCH/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2014-15 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman .......... Appellant Xxxi 289 Lakshmi Nivas, Pushpagiri Thrissur - 680002 [Pan: Aiops8626E] Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Wd-2(1), Thrissur .......... Respondent Appellant By: Shri Jai Krishna, Advocate Respondent By: Smt. Veni Raj, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 11.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025

For Appellant: Shri Jai Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Veni Raj, CIT-DR
Section 147Section 69A

filed on 24.12.2021 declaring total income of Rs. 16,65,320/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter called "the 2 Sitaram Thrikkur Subbaraman AO") vide order dated 19.03.2022 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B

Monzey Varghese, Pallipuram vs. Income Tax Commisioner, Mattanchery

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

ITA 367/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by the appellant. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") gathered information from ITBA portal that the appellant made cash deposits in SB accounts maintained with Indus

Monzey Varghese, Pallipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Mattanchery

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

ITA 366/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by the appellant. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") gathered information from ITBA portal that the appellant made cash deposits in SB accounts maintained with Indus

Monzey Varghese, Pallipuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Mattanchery

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

ITA 365/COCH/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Jose, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R
Section 148

case are that the appellant is an individual. No regular return of income for AY 2015-16 was filed by the appellant. The National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter called "the AO") gathered information from ITBA portal that the appellant made cash deposits in SB accounts maintained with Indus

Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Limited, Lakeshore Hospital, Nettoor vs. DCIT Corporate Cir 1(1), Kochi

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

ITA 355/COCH/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin31 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2018-19 Lakeshore Hospital & Research Centre Ltd. .......... Appellant Nettoor So, Ernakulam 682040 [Pan: Aaacl4923A] Vs. Dcit, Corporate Circle-1(1), Kochi .......... Respondent Appellant By: Ms. Rohini Thampy, Ca Respondent By: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 31.07.2025 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 [Cit(A)] Dated 10.03.2025 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Appellant Is A Company Incorporated Under The Provisions Of Companies Act, 1956. It Is Engaged In The Business Of Running A Hospital. The Return Of Income For Ay 2018-19 Was Filed On 30.10.2018 Disclosing Loss Of Rs. 11,39,12,480/-. Against The Said Return Of Income, The Assessment Was Completed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre

For Appellant: Ms. Rohini Thampy, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, CIT-DR
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

filed on 30.10.2018 disclosing loss of Rs. 11,39,12,480/-. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre 2 Lakeshore Hospital and Research Centre Ltd. (hereinafter called "the AO") vide order dated 23.07.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

Shri Jalaram Arogya Seva Trust, Sabarkantha vs. The ITO (Exemption), Palanpur

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 808/AHD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Bandish Soparkar, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Kamal Deep Singh, Sr. D.R
Section 11Section 115BSection 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 68

erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant confirming the assessment order passed by Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre determining income at Rs. 9,01,020/-. 2. The NFAC has erred in law and in facts in rejecting the ground of the Appellant