← 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

Madhya Bharat International Pvt Ltd, Indore vs. NFAC New Delhi, New Delhi

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

ITA 642/IND/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 56(2)(viib)

passed by learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 22.01.2022 passed by the learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2016-17, the assessee

Madhya Pradesh Building and Other Construction Welfare Board, Bhopal vs. DCIT(Exemption), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 382/IND/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year:2017-18 Madhya Pradesh Building Dcit (Exemption) & Other Construction Bhopal Welfare Board, बनाम/ 82- Harshvardhan Nagar, Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan:Aaalm0795N Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal & Shri N.D. Patwa, Ars Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 23.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2025

Section 10Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 30.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the assessee

Ostrich Mobility Instruments Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 909/BANG/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Jul 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri Ankur Pai, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 69C

assessee against the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Page 2 of 6 Tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] , was dismissed. 2. The reason for dismissal of the appeal is that the ld. CIT(A) granted 7 opportunities

Incometax Officer, Bhimavaram vs. Prasad Raju Penmatsa, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 33/VIZ/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

33/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) - REVENUE APPEAL 15. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: - “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) erred estimating the business profit at Rs.99

Penmatsa Prasad Raju, Bhimavaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bhimavaram

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

ITA 517/VIZ/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam25 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.517/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Penmatsa Prasad Raju D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Jp Road, Sivaraopet Andhra Pradesh Bhimavaram – 534201 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.33/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2022-23) Vs. Penmatsa Prasad Raju Income Tax Officer D.No. 7-7-25/3 Income Tax Office Kodavalli Road, Fci Colony Aayakar Bhavan Bhimavaram – 534201 Opp. Ganesh Canteen Andhra Pradesh Jp Road, Sivaraopet Bhimavaram – 534202 [Pan:Aqcpp6707B] Andhra Pradesh (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Satyasai Rath, Cit(Dr)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 144

33/VIZ/2025 (A.Y. 2022-23) - REVENUE APPEAL 15. Revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: - “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) erred estimating the business profit at Rs.99

Ishit Kamleshbhai Sheth, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-5(3)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 753/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 270ASection 270A(2)(b)Section 270A(6)(a)

total income of Rs. 20,70,160/-. The assessment was completed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Officer or AO”], vide order dated 11.03.2023, accepting the returned income in toto, without making any variation

B. Arunkumar Capital & Credit Services Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax 3, Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly

ITA 2034/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai25 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara ()

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 37(1)Section 80G

claim of unsecured loan from Cheay Investments Pvt. Ltd. Yours faithfully. Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi 5. 4. Further the assessment order also acknowledges the fact that the assessment was picked up for complete scrutiny only to verify large

Bihar State Road Development Corpn.Ltd., Patna vs. CIT (Appeal), Delhi

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

ITA 335/PAT/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Patna vs. ACIT, Cor-2, Patna

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

ITA 334/PAT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Ltd, Patna vs. ACIT, Cir-2, P)Atna

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

ITA 333/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity

Bihar State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Patna

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

ITA 332/PAT/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity

Bihar State Road Development Corpn. Ltd., Patna vs. ACIT, Circle 2, Patna

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

ITA 331/PAT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity

Bihar State Road Development Corporation Limited, Patna vs. ITO Ward 2(1) Patna, Patna

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

ITA 330/PAT/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Patna24 Jul 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 80I

passed under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year 2018-19 by the Ld. assessing officer at Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, is bad both in law and on facts. 4. For that the appellant was not given any opportunity, much less sufficient opportunity

Pramod Lakra Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-11(1), Kolkata vs. Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 222/KOL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. III. FOR THAT the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Unit") to the extent of Rs. 27,73,218/-even though the mandatory notice required

Tarak Nath Kar, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 133/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: us, the Ld. AR argued that the assessee is a salaried employee of M/s ONGC Ltd., from which he retired and got substantial amounts as retirement benefit (Rs.57,01,012/-). It has been stated that the assessee had duly sent all the details to his tax consultant who apparently failed to file the return of income. It has been further stated that all amounts were received from the employer and even the investments were made from such receipts only. Also, due to non-filing of return of income, so

Section 10Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

133/KOL/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Tarak Nath Kar, 49A, Mahendra Banerjee Road, Kolkata - 700060 [PAN: AILPK8919K] ……..…...…………….... Appellant vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, National Faceless Assessment Centre, 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, New Delhi – 110033 ................................. Respondent Appearances by: Assessee represented by : Kumar Jit Das, Adv. Department represented by : Sanat

Urvashi Sarees Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T., Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed and the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1946/KOL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: ITAT, Kolkata were collected and prepared | | 18.01.2025 | 2nd Appeal was filed |

Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 69C

arbitrary, unjustified, unwarranted and illegal. III. FOR THAT the Learned CIT (Appeals) erred in upholding the assessment order passed by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the "Assessment Unit") to the extent of Rs. 27,73,218/-even though the mandatory notice required

Cee Enn Estates Private Limited Barewal Sukhmani Enclave Ludhiana, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(5) Ludhiana Rishi Nagar Ludhiana, Income Tax Officer Ludhiana Rishi Nagar Ludhina

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 1178/CHANDI/2024[2023-2024]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh22 Jul 2025AY 2023-2024

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

For Appellant: Shri P.N. Arora, Advocate (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 143(1)

present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds: 1. That the Assessment Order dated 21/05/2024 passed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi dated 25/09/2024 thereby ... this case and are untenable under the law. 2. That no reasonable and proper opportunity of being heard was allowed by the AO, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi before 2 passing the order u/s 143(1) thereby creating a demand of Rs.14,46,230/-. As such the order passed

Vinita Bajoria, Jaipur vs. Income-Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 370/JPR/2025[201617]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur21 Jul 2025

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 370/JP/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Vinita Bajoria 1, Ganesh Colony Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur बनाम Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2), Jaipur स्थायी लेखा सं. / जीआईआर सं./PAN/GIR No.: AEBPB4873M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CA राजस्व की ओर से / Revenue by : Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hear

For Appellant: Sh. Manoj Choudhary, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gorav Avasthi, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

given sufficient time for response from the assessee in contravention of the process prescribed in the SOP dated 03.08.2022 issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi under section 144B(6)(xi) wherein it is provided that timelines to be given for obtaining response from the assessee must be minimum

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(3)(1), Mumbai vs. Tmf Holdings Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 2983/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhrideputy Commissioner Of Vs Tmf Holdings Limited 14, 4Th Floor, Sir H C Dinshaw Income Tax, Circle 1(3)(1), Mumbai Building, 16, Horniman Circle, Fort, Room No.535, 5Th Floor, Aaykar Mumbai-400 001 Bhavan, M.K. Road, Mumbai- Pan: Aacct4644A 400 020 Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Rajan Vora a/w Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Mishra, CIT DR
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 37(1)

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2017-18, date of order 26/02/2025. The impugned order emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Act, date of order 31/03/2022. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds

Mr. Durgesh Ramashankar Rai, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(1)(1), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2351/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Kiran Mehta, CAFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri, Sr. DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

I.T.A. No. 2351/Mum/2025 (Assessment Year: 2014-15) Mr. Durgesh Ramashankar Rai, Assessment Unit of Income Tax, C-12, Jai Bharat Societysunder Baug, National Faceless Assessment Centre/ Kamani Kurla (West), Vs. ITO Ward-41(1)(1), Mumbai-400070. Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, PAN: AHDPR3512J Bandra (East), Mumbai-400051. Appellant) : Respondent) Appellant /Assessee