“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

A.C.I.T Circle-2(1), Rajkot vs. Sanskar Developers, Rajkot

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed for statistical purposes, whereas cross objection (CO ) filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 242/RJT/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 242/Rjt/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2015-16) Assisstant Commissioner Of Income- Sanskar Developers Tax, Circle-2(1), Rajkot, Room No. 311, Shop No. 1, Shri Raj Complex, 1- Vs. 3Rd Floor, Aayakar Bhawan, Race Madhav Park, B/H. Vijay Hostel, Course Road, Rajkot – 360001 150Ft Ring Road, Rajkot – 360004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ackfs 2310 R (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rashmin Vakariya, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Punglia, Ld. CIT(DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 250

2/Rft/2024 (AY. 15-16) Sanskar Developers referred to as “the Act”), which in turn arise, out of an assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi /Assessing Officer (assessing officer) u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act, vide order dated 29.03.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised

Seema Jain, Indore vs. ITO 1(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed

ITA 591/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore17 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshiassessment Year: 2013-14 Seema Jain, Ito 1(1) 73-Ba, Scheme No.94, Indore Regency Adrise, Near बनाम/ Bombay Hospital, Vs. Vijay Nagar, Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Adtpj4652K Assessee By Shri Anil Khandelwal, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.07.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 17.07.2025

Section 139Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50Section 50C

Income-tax-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of penalty-order dated 09.12.2021 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 271(1)(c) of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for assessment-year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee has filed this

Shri Devinder Parkash Vijay, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-44(5), Delhi

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 157 days in filing

ITA 2096/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Krishna Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanesta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL

Yuksom Breweries Ltd., Sikim vs. Addl./Joint CIT, Range - 2, Siliguri

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

ITA 1921/KOL/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Jul 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 269TSection 271ESection 273BSection 274

following grounds of appeal: “1. (a) For that the Ld. CIT(A) was not justified in upholding the order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre u/s 271E levying a penalty of Rs. 63,82,872/- for the alleged violation of section 269T. (b) For that

Suresh Trilotkar, Mumbai vs. Income-Tax Officer 42(3)(4), Mumbai

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed as infructuous

ITA 4487/MUM/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai () & Shri Girish Agrawal ()

Section 270Section 270A

parte order. 2 ITA 4487/Mum/2024; A.Y. 2017-18 Suresh Trilotkar 2. The NFAC erred ini not adjudicating the following ground of appeal - "The National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred in levying penalty of Rs 9,197 under section 270A

ACIT 531, Mumbai vs. Teleperformance Global Services Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

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

ITA 1484/MUM/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

No.1451, 1452 & 1484/Mum/2024 and CO 87/Mum/2024 emanated from the orders of the Additional / Joint / Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax / Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [in short, the “Ld. AO”] passed under section 144 read with section 263 read with section 144B of the Act, all dated

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1452/MUM/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Teleperformance Global Services Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Additional-Joint-Deputy-Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-Ncome Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 1451/MUM/2024[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Teleperformance Global Services P. Ltd., Mumbai vs. The Pr. CIT -5, Mumbai

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

ITA 977/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: BEFOR SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SMT. RENU JAUHRI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri J.D. Mistry a/wFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra, CIT DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 144C(13)Section 144C(3)Section 250Section 263

Prerna Realpromoters Private Limited, Shyam Nagar Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(2) Jpr, Jaipur

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

ITA 482/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Prabha Rana, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessment years 2013-14. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the order of assessment passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [ for short AO ]as per section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act]. 2 PRERNA REALPROMOTERS ... heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. Brief facts of the case are that the AO (Income Tax Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi) while making the assessment noticed that the assessee had filed the return of income for the year under consideration declaring total income

Bklg Vendors Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(4) Jaipur, Jaipur Rajasthan

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

ITA 415/JPR/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur15 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Sharma,CA (Thru” V.C.)For Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT-DR

Section 144Section 234BSection 68

assessment years 2022-23. That order of the ld. CIT(A) arises because the assessee challenged the order of assessee passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO ]in the matter of Section 144 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short Act ] and thus

Railwaymens Cooperative Credit Society, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1144/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [the CIT(A)"] erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ("the AO") in treating income of Rs.48,09,143 as income from other sources taxable u/s.56 of the Income ... Delhi (NFAC).["CIT (A)"] erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs.38,70,456 made by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ("the AO"). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing

Railwaymens Cooperative Credit Society, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(1)(1), Vadodara, Gujarat

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1143/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Ms. Amrin Pathan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Suresh Chand Meena, Sr. D.R

Section 234BSection 270ASection 56Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 8O

1144/Ahd/2025 Railwaymens Cooperative Credit Society, A.Y. 2018-19 & 2020-21 and in law in confirming the action of the learned Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre ("the AO") in treating income of Rs. 48,09,143 as income from other sources taxable u/s. 56 of the Income ... NFAC).["CIT (A)"] erred in fact and in law in confirming the disallowance of Rs. 38,70,456 made by the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘the AO’). 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in fact and in law in confirming the action of the learned AO in computing

K Mordani Constructions Private Limited (Formerly Known As K Mordani Constructions LLP), Mumbai vs. DCIT 22(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1737/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai14 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhriआयकर अपील सुं./Ita No. 1737/Mum/2025 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2018-19) K Mordani Constructions V/S. Additional/Joint/Deputy/ Private Limited (Formerly बिाम Assistant Commissioner Of Known As K Mordani Income Tax/Income-Tax Constructions Llp) Officer, National E- Office No. 105, 1St Floor, Assessment Centre, Delhi, Amore Commercial Dcit22(1) Premises Co-Op. Soc. Ltd., Piramal Chambers, Mumbai Junction Of 2Nd & 4Th Road Khar (West), Mumbai -400052 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aalfk2128G Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रनिवादी निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By: Shri Ajay R. Singh A/W Shri Akshay Pawar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. Dr.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay R. Singh a/w ShriFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

Assessment Year [A.Y.] 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) has erred in law and facts by confirming the disallowance of Rs. 58,76,385/- made

Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Tenali

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 251/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam10 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.251/Viz/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2015-16) Vs. Income Tax Officer-Ward – 1 Vaka Ghanta Nageswararao 4-82-A, Gullapalli Tenali -522201 Goudapalem, Cherukapalli Mandal Andhra Pradesh Guntur – 522309 Andhra Pradesh [Pan:Afjpn4315H] (अपीलधर्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Shri Malladi Muralidhar, Ca करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr.Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 80C

this issue, Ld.AR placed heavy reliance on the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench in the case of Mukaesh Kumar Bhawarlal Jain v. National Faceless Assessment Centre in ITA No. 6695/MUM/2024 dated 06.06.2025 and ACIT v. Manish Financial in ITA No. 5055/MUM/2024 dated 0212.2024. Ld.AR also contested that as held

Savita Gupta, Kota vs. ITO, Delhi

ITA 609/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vinod Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT

Section 132Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

which was passed 2 Savita Gupta vs. ITO under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ for short “Act”] by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ for short AO]. 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A) has erred

Maheshwara Reddy Venkatareddy Jonnala, Byadgi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Haveri

ITA 944/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Magavi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 131Section 147Section 40ASection 40A(3)

Delhi (NFAC) [ld. CIT(Appeals)] dated 12.2.2025 wherein the appeal filed by the assessee on 9.5.2022 against the assessment order passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] u/s. 147 r.w.s. Page 2 of 6 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] dated 31.3.2022 was partly

Om Prakash Girgaonkar, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1 & Tps, Bijapur

ITA 943/BANG/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year : 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Prasanna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian, Jt.CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 147Section 194I

assessee against the assessment order dated 29.11.2024 u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [the Act] by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [ld. AO] was dismissed. 2. The assessee is aggrieved and has preferred this appeal raising several grounds of appeal but main grievance is that

Rohit Tejraj Jain, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 32(1)(1), Mumbai, Maharashtra

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 3323/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

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

Section 148Section 250

following grounds of appeal - "The following grounds of appeal are independent of, and without prejudice to, one another- 1. The Officer at National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer) erred in determining the total income at Rs 82,46,446 as against

Odia Samaj, Aradhna Enclave vs. Income-Tax Officer (Circle Exemp 2(1), Delhi), New Delhi

ITA 5251/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 80G(5)(vi)

Delhi, arising out of the order dated 07.06.2021(DIN: ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1033301230), passed by the 2 ODIA Samaj v. ITO A.Y. 2018-19 National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, under Section 143(3) read with Section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred