“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

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Bse Ltd, Mumbai

In the result, assessee’s appeal ITA No

ITA 2440/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Dec 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT MS. PADMAVATHY S (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

Section 115JSection 143(2)Section 14ASection 201Section 250Section 37(1)

Income Tax (Appeals) at National Faceless Appeal Centre (CIT(A), NFAC) was justified in confirming the action of the Learned Assessing Officer at National Faceless Assessment Centre (ld. A.O. at NaFAC) of disallowance of Rs. 17,83,25,426/-u/s.14A r.w.r 8D of the Income

Anand Nvh Products P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is allowed with consequences to follow as per determination of the grounds as above

ITA 705/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18 Anand Nvh Products P. Ltd., Vs Dcit, F-3/5, Vasant Vihar, Circle-1(1), New Delhi – 110 057. New Delhi. Pan: Aaeca0297J

For Appellant: Shri Mukesh BhutaniFor Respondent: Shri Dharamvir Singh, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

Pronouncement : 02.12.2024 ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the final assessment order dated 21.02.2022 of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO) passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Simoco Systems and Infrastructure Solutions Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO Ward 2 (1), Kolkata

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

ITA 123/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Indranil Banerjee, ARFor Respondent: Ankur Goyal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

Appeals) has erred on facts and in law by upholding the addition of Rs 4,84,99,218/- made by Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, as undisclosed interest income on short term Loans and Advances purely on presumption without any factual basis and reference to any section

Raghav Commodities, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 6(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated

ITA 943/JPR/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Nov 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

M/S. Sri. Venugopalakrishna Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1947/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: The present appeals are preferred by the assessee against the orders issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated January 11, 2024 and January 22, 2024 pertaining to the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, 2015-16, and 2017-18. ITA No.1944

M/S. Sri. Venugopalakrishna Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1945/BANG/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

M/S. Sri. Venugopalakrishna Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1944/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore29 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubey

For Appellant: Shri H Guruswamy, ITPFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Bareilly vs. I.T.O. 2(3), Bareilly

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

ITA 108/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Nov 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshrarajesh Kumar Gupta Ito-2(3) V. C606, Patel Nagar, Barelly- C.R. Building, Civil Lines, 243001. Barelly-243001. Pan:Agupg2877M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri A. P. Sinha, Adv Respondent By: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 25 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri A. P. Sinha, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Rajwanshi, Addl

Section 147Section 69A

raised the following grounds: - “1. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law because f the Ld. CIT, (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi erred while directing the Assessing Officer to treat peak credit in the bank account only as unexplained income. 2. In the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law because f the Ld. CIT, (Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi erred while not considering the business income of the appellant. 3. In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law because f the Ld. C.1.T.(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Kolkata vs. Kali Fabrics Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 291/KOL/2024[2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2024

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Jm]

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 36Section 36(1)(iii)

assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) by Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi dated 31.04.2021. 2. The only issue raised by the revenue is against the order of Ld. CIT(A) deleting the addition

Pukar Seva Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 5371/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Khona, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

mail address which was not in use, impugned best judgment assessment order deserved to be set aside. (Bengal & Assam Company Ltd v. National Faceless Assessment Centre-154 taxmann.com 130 (Delhi) dt. July 4, 2023) 6. The decision of (2024) 165 taxmann.com 39(Cuttack Trib) Ma Jagat Janani Seva Trust ... mail address which was not in use, impugned best judgment assessment order deserved to be set aside. (Bengal & Assam Company Ltd v. National Faceless Assessment Centre-154 taxmann.com 130 (Delhi) dt. July 4, 2023) 5. The decision of (2024) 165 taxmann.com 39(Cuttack Trib) Maa Jagat Janani Seva Trust

Pukar Seva Pratishthan, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Pune

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

ITA 5370/MUM/2024[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri R.D. Khona, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT DR

Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)Section 80G

G S Farm Taaza Produce Private Limited., Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (OSD), Range-3(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 1255/BANG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Nov 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Keshav Dubeyassessment Year: 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri BS Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri V Parithivel, JCIT (DR)

Section 154Section 250Section 56(2)(viib)

from the CIT(A) was neither served upon the appellant nor accessible on the income tax portal. The Authorized Representative (AR) referenced the National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC) order under Section 154 read with Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, dated 21.03.2024, confirming that the appellate order dated

Vimlesh Kumar, Raebareli vs. ITO, Raebareli

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

ITA 524/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow19 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivatava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraassessment Year: 2017-18 Vimlesh Kumar Income Tax Officer V. Village & Post Thulendi, Income Tax Building, Jail Bachhrawan, Raebareli- Road, Raebareli-229001. 229301. Pan:Blbpk4834R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None (Adj. Application Filed) Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18 11 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19 11 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: None (Adj. Application filed)For Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, Addl

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250(4)Section 254(3)Section 40Section 40A(3)Section 69

That the learned assessing officer erred in not providing reasonable and proper opportunity before completing the assessment. 3. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment Centre Delhi erred both on facts and in law by making an addition of Rs.3,39,303/- on account of disallowance ... Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment centre Delhi erred both on facts and in law by making an addition of Rs.66,25,550/- on account of addition of u/s 40A(3) of the Act, 1961. Page 2 of 5 5. Because the learned officer National Faceless Assessment centre Delhi

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3531/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21 & Assessment Year: 2020-21 Dy. Commissioner Of Income Swami Vivekanand Tax (Exemptions)-2(1), Medical Mission Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, Peddar C/O Sanjivani Hospital, Vs. Road, Cumbala Hill, Datta Mandir Road, Mumbai - 400026 Virar(W) Mumbai – 401303 Pan: Aabts9185K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Anil Sathe,Ca Revenue By : Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2024 O R D E R Per : Prabhash Shankar: The Above Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Emanate From The Appellate Order Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, With Regard To The Assessment/Penalty Orders Passed Under Section 143(3) & 270A Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2020-21. 2. We Take Up The Quantum Appeal First Relating To Assessment Order In Ita No.3531/M/2024 Assessment Year: 2020-21. The Revenue Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal :

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

r.w.s. 144B dated 27.02.2024, no adverse inference had been drawn and the returned income had been accepted without, making any addition by the National Faceless Assessment Centre. Furthermore, the appellant's case for assessment years 2016-17 and 2017-18 were also selected for regular scrutiny and no additions were

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax(Exemptions)-2(1), Mumbai vs. Swami Vivekanand Medical Mission, Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3530/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dr Kishore Dhule,CIT(DR)

Section 11Section 143(3)Section 2(15)

Smt. Lingammal Ramaraju Shastra Prathishta Trust, Rajapalayam vs. ACIT (Exemptions), Coimbatore

ITA 1250/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Section 11Section 12ASection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264

deed, financials, details of receipts, note on activities, separate accounts of petrol pumps including its financials, details of employees etc., the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre [in short `AO'] is noted to have issued show cause notice u/s 142(1) of the Act dated 14.01.2021 proposing to deny

Hyundai Rotem Company-Indian Project Offices, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Int. Taxation, Circle-2(1)(1), New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2027/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarhyundai Rotem Acit Company Indian Project International Taxation, Offices Vs. Circle2(1)(1), Room No. Unit No. 705, 706, 707 310, E-2 Block & 708 (07Th Floor), Dlf Pratyakash Kar Tower-A, Jasola District Bhawan, Civic Centre, Centre Near Apollo Jl Nehru Marg, New Hospital, Mathura Road, Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aabck6367L (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 13Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92C

under sub-rule (3).” 13. Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in Civil Appeal No. 1829 of 2023 in the case of the National Faceless Assessment Centre & Ors. Vs Automotive Manufacturers Private Limited order dated 21.03.2023 held as under:- “4. Having heard Shri Balbir Singh, learned ASG, appearing

Arvindbhai Manubhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1448/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri Hem Chhajed, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ketan Gajjar, Sr DR

Section 148Section 2(14)Section 250Section 54B

illegal as reassessment proceedings is void and illegal as notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by JAO instead of AO of National Faceless Assessment Centre. 3. Assessment order passed by the Ld. A.O. is void & illegal as reopening of assessment is made on incorrect facts. Arvindbhai Manubhai Patel

India Tube Mills and Metal Industries Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT-15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2262/MUM/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Anikesh Banerjee & Smt. Renu Jauhri

For Appellant: Shri Surinder Mehra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Krishna Kumar (SRDR)

Section 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 275(1)

short, ‘the Act’), for Assessment Year 2013-14,date of order22.03.2022. The impugned orderis emanated from the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (in brevity, ‘the Ld.AO’)passed under section271(1)(c) of the Act, date of order 17/02/2022. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds:- “GROUNDS

Damodaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 2105/CHNY/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.2105/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-2019) Shri Arjunan Damodaran Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 3/117, 16Th Cross Street, Chennai. Ganga Nagar, Mettukuppam, Maduravoyal, Chennai 600 095. [Pan: Aoapd 4577R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri K. Shanmugam, C.A., ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri Arv Srinivasan, Irs, Add. Cit. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07.11.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 08.11.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Manu Kumar Giri ()

For Appellant: Shri K. Shanmugam, C.AFor Respondent: Shri ARV Srinivasan, IRS, Add. CIT

Section 147Section 148

order dated 22.03.2023 passed u/s section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) by the NATIONAL FACELESS ASSESSMENT CENTRE for Assessment Year (‘AY’ in short) 2018-19. 2. Brief facts of the case are that as per the information available with