“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

R.D. Vohra HUF, New Delhi vs. PCIT, Faridabad

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 165 days in filing

ITA 4948/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Rajkumar Gupta, CA & Shri J.PFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 263

under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising out of order dated 30.03.2022 of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Act for assessment year 2015-16. ITA No.4948/Del/2024 2. Brief facts

Krishn Mani Pandey, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 2629/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Krishn Mani Pandey, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Flat No. 90D, Block E4, Ward 5(2)(1), Udyog Vihar, Sector 82, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida, Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida Pin 201 301 Pan No. Addpp5631J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms, Shilpi Dewan, CA & Sh. K.MFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal of assessee is against order dated 27.03.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. CIT(A)” under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising

Pankaj Dodwani, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 373/IND/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 2Section 263

directing revision of the assessment order dated 22.09.21 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B by the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("the NFAC ") 2. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the PCIT has erred in passing the order u/s. 263 on the alleged ground

Pankaj Dodwani, Indore vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-1, Indore

Appeals are dismissed

ITA 363/IND/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore07 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 2Section 263

Mudubhagilu Krishna Murthy Divakar, Shivamogga vs. Income Tax Assessing Officer, Shimoga

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 732/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jul 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri. Prakash Chand Yadavassessment Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri. Monish, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Advocate, Standing Counsel for Revenue

Section 144Section 234ASection 250

Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1072937983(1) dated 05.02.2025, on the following grounds: 1. The impugned order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the appellant

Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu, Vijayawada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 265/VIZ/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Jul 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A.No.265/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2013-14) Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 3(1) 14/4, Flat No. 503 Cr Building, 1St Floor Annex Sree Satya Sai Towers M.G. Road, Vijayawada – 522002 Andhra Pradesh Main Road Nunna Andhra Pradesh - 521212 [Pan:Aiopb5077E] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent) करदाता का प्रतततितित्व/ Assessee Represented By : Shri I. Kama Sastry, Ca राजस्व का प्रतततितित्व/ Department Represented By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr.Ar

Section 112Section 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 149(1)(b)Section 234ASection 54FSection 69A

barred by limitation as per the first proviso to section 149(1)(b) (New) w.e.f. 01.04.2021. 3. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified and the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in denying the exemption of Rs.1,23,53,826 claimed ... total amount as unexplained under section 69A. Page. No 3 I.T.A.No.265/VIZ/2024 Murali Mohan Reddy Bonthu 4. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified in taxing the income at 30% as against 20% provided for under section 112 in the case of long term capital gains

Rolls-Royce India Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT Tp 3(2)(1), Delhi

The appeal is allowed as indicated above

ITA 252/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil Tiwari, AdvFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Jadhav, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)

High Court in the aforenoted paragraphs of Vodafone Idea and in Shell India Markets Private Limited v. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. The relevant paragraph of the decision in Shell India are extracted hereinbelow: "10. Sub-section (13) of section 144C, therefore, is very ... additionally stated to have been dispatched through Speed Post to the third respondent (TPO) and the fourth respondent (Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, New Delhi) on 27 June 2022. It is thereafter that the TPO appears to have passed the order dated 25 July

Anjali Malik, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Rohtak

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 132 days in filing the appeal and appeal are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1504/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Anjali Malik, Vs. Ito, Ward 3, 190, Delhi Road, Rohtak. Civil Lines, Rohtak (Haryana) Pan No. Abopm2126J (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Suresh Kumar Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 148ASection 250

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

Jug Vir Singh, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward -3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 395 days in filing appeal and appeal of appellant/assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1406/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2011-12 Jug Vir Singh, Vs. Ito, Ward 3(1), Vill. & Post: Nimchana, Bulandshahr Madhaiy, Thana Agota, Bulandshahr Pan No. Doups8660P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 30

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

Sangeeta Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-5(3)(3), Gautam Budh Nagar, Noida

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

ITA 1388/DEL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Garg, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

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

Naveen Garg, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-34(1), Delhi

In the result, the application for condonation of delay of 32 days in filing appeal and appeal of appellant/assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1364/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jul 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2022-23 Naveen Garg, Vs. Ito, Ward 34(1), Hd-56, M/S.Shree Bankey Delhi Bihari Pulses Pulses Mills, 2Nd Floor, Pitampura, New Delhi Pin: 1100 34 Pan No. Agdpk1562G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Manshi Jain, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Monika Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

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

Neerikode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Alangad vs. ITO, Ward-3, Aluva

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

ITA 70/COCH/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2020-21 Neerikode Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant Neericode P.O., Alangad, Kerala. Pan: Aabat2626H Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-3, Aluva.

For Appellant: Shri Arun Raj S, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Suresh Sivanandan, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 37Section 68Section 69Section 80P

Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to “Assessing Authority”) vide order dated 24/09/2022 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Thiruvalla Service Cooperative Bank Ltd, Thiruvalla vs. ITO, Ward 2, Thiruvalla

In the result, we dismiss these I

ITA 250/COCH/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year:2021-22 Thiruvalla Service Cooperative Bank Ltd .......... Appellant No. 1307, Kavumbhagam, Thiruvalla P.O, Kerala – 689102. Pan:Aacat9668A

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

after claiming deduction U/s. 80P(2)(d) of the Act. Against the said return of income, the assessment was completed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Authority”) vide order dated 18/12/2022 passed U/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B of the Income

Kvn Petro Products, Kozhikode vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 121/COCH/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin30 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao, Am & Sonjoy Sarma, Jm Assessment Year: 2017-18 Kvn Petro Products .......... Appellant V-421/B, Opp. Nallam Police Station, Nallam, Kerala-673027. Pan: Aahfk4721H Vs. Income Tax Officer .......... Respondent Ward-1(2), Kozhikode. Appellant By: Shri Santosh Pai, Ca Respondent By: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.06.2025

For Appellant: Shri Santosh Pai, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. D.R

Section 271BSection 274Section 44A

engaged in the business of dealing in petroleum products. During the course 2 KVN Petro Products vs. ITO of the assessment proceedings, the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Assessing Authority”) found that the appellant is liable to get the accounts audited U/s. 44AB

Madkini Hydro Power Private Limited, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Officer- 4(3), Lucknow

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

ITA 228/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow30 Jun 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2018-19 Madkini Hydro Power Private V. The Income Tax Officer 4(3) Limited Lucknow Flat No.4, Ii Floor 3, Scindia House Delhi 110 001 Tan/Pan:Aaecm1420B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, Adv. Respondent By: Shri R. K. Agarwal, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 10 06 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shalendera Kishore Singh, AdvFor Respondent: Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT(DR)

Section 115BSection 144Section 68

Brand Solutions Pvt. Ltd. Additional Joint Deputy Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax and Ors. (Bombay High Court WP1378/2021); Floral Realcon Pvt. Ltd v. National Faceless Assessment Centre in (Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 9071/2021); Gurgaon Realtech Limited v. National Faceless Assessment Centre (Delhi High Court in W.P(C) 5849/2021

Kissan Petro Oils Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle -13(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of appellant/assessee is allowed

ITA 5599/DEL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Bikash Kumar Thakur on behalf of Shri Dinesh Chandra, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The appeal of assessee is against order dated 15.07.2024 of Learned Commissioner of Incom-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC)), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. CIT(A)” under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( hereinafter referred as “the Act”) arising ... penalty order dated 31.03.2022 by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as “Ld. AO") under Section 143(3) of the Act for assessment year 2015-16. 2. Brief facts of case are that appellant/assessee is engaged in the business of manufacturing and sale of methyl ester

Jones Lang Lasalle Property Consultants (India) Private Limited, Delhi, India vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 13(1), Delhi, India

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and the Stay

ITA 3964/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Jun 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Stay Application No.61/Del/2025 ( In Ita No. 3964/Del/2024 ) Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: S/Shri Nageshwar Rao and ParthFor Respondent: ShriDharam Veer Singh, CIT (DR)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144CSection 144C(12)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 41Section 92

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “I”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL KUMAR

Capgemini Technology Services India Limited ( Successor of Aricent Technologies Holdings Limited), Pune vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax - Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 2804/PUN/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2804/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Capgemini Technology V The Assistant Services India Limited[As S Commissioner Of Income Successor In Interest Of Tax-1(1)(1), Pune. Erstwhile Aricent Technologies (Holdings) Limited-Since Amalgamated], Plot No.14, Rajiv Gandhi Infotech Park, Hinjewadi, Phase-Iii, Midc Sez, Village Man, Taluka Mulshi, District- Pune – 411057. Maharashtra. Pan: Aacck8280B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil Pathak – Ar Revenue By Shri Prakash L Pathade –Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 19/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /06/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.10.2024 For The A.Y.2021-22, Emanating From The

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)Section 153Section 234ASection 270ASection 92C

erred in not providing a copy of the Central Board of Direct Taxes ('Board') approval for transferring the instant case from National Faceless Assessment Centre ('NFAC') to learned AO. 5. The learned AO grossly erred both on facts and circumstances of the case and in law in proposing to initiate

Income Tax Officer, Ward-47(1), Delhi, New Delhi vs. Bhuvan Sharma, New Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 2178/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Amitabh Shuklaasstt. Year : 2017-18 Ito, Ward 47(1), Vs. Bhuvan Sharma, New Delhi 83, Ground Floor, Fatehpuri, Gandhi Gali, Delhi – 110 006 (Pan: Amlps2145P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.06.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 27.06.2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

order dated 30.05.2023 passed by the NFAC, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 on the following grounds:- 1. Ld. CIT (Appeal), National Faceless Assessment Centre has allowed appeal of the assessee in respect of the addition of Rs. 42,01,500/- where Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre ... Para No. 8.6 and Para No. 9 of the Assessment Order and therefore, it is clear that Ld. CIT(Appeal), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi has grossly failed to appreciate the fact that the addition has duly been made on the basis of delayed examination of the information and documents

Sirionlabs Private Ltd., Delhi vs. AO Ward 23(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 742/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

hearing Date of pronouncement : 27.06.2025 : 27.06.2025 ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 21st February, 2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. When this appeal was called for hearing, learned Counsel for the assessee