← 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

Tejpal Singh Yadav, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Noida

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

ITA 835/DEL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2013-14 Tejpal Singh Yadav, Vs Ito, S.O. Bhora, Ward-3(5), Near Mata Mandir, Noida. Village-Rasulpur, Newada Sector-62, Noida (Uttar Pradesh) – 201 301. Pan: Alppt8514N

For Appellant: Shri Satyajeet Goel, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 147

order dated 31.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. AO). 2. On hearing both the sides, we find that the assessment order was passed

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, International-Tax, Delhi

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 3526/DEL/2023[2021-2022]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2021-2022

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

assessment scheme prescribed under section 144B of the Act. Whereas, he submitted, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by National Faceless Assessment Centre. Thus, he submitted, in terms with CBDT Notification, on the date of issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, National ... taken a view against the assessee. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is no lack of authority/jurisdiction on the part of National Faceless Assessment Centre in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In support, he relied upon Notification No. F. No. 225/91/2022/ITA-II, dated 28.05.2022. Thus

Tricentis Gmbh, Austria vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax

In the result, appeals are allowed, as indicated above

ITA 2705/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: BEFORESHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144B

assessment scheme prescribed under section 144B of the Act. Whereas, he submitted, notice under section 143(2) of the Act was issued by National Faceless Assessment Centre. Thus, he submitted, in terms with CBDT Notification, on the date of issue of notice under section 143(2) of the Act, National ... taken a view against the assessee. 4. Learned Departmental Representative submitted that there is no lack of authority/jurisdiction on the part of National Faceless Assessment Centre in issuing notice under section 143(2) of the Act. In support, he relied upon Notification No. F. No. 225/91/2022/ITA-II, dated 28.05.2022. Thus

Ratna Kumari Koppisetty, Kakinada vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 411/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 411/Viz/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18) Ratna Kumari Koppisetty V. Income Tax Officer – Ward – 1 3-11-A/3, Recharlapeta Income Tax Office, 11-11-1 3Rd Floor, Sanjivi Hospital Complex Military Colony Ramaraopeta – 533004 Kakinada, Andhra Pradesh 533001 Andhra Pradesh [Pan: Asdpk7729B] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

petition which is as under: - “1. That for the assessment year 2017-18 an appeal has been filed before the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Assessment Centre through a consultant at Kakinada. 2. That all the notices for hearing have been sent by the Ld.CIT(Appeals) to the e mail

Simhadri Naidu Samanthula, Palakonda vs. Income Tax Officer - Ward-1, Srikakulam

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

ITA 410/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 Nov 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.410/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Simhadri Naidu Samanthula, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Palakonda. Ward-1, Pan: Amsps2903C Srikakulam. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/11/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 05/11/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)Section 149(1)(b)Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Tribunal by raising the following modified grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144B by the Assessment unit, IT Department, National Faceless Assessment Centre is null and void as the assessment made is based on notice U/s. 148 which is barred by limitation as per the first ... Ward-1, Srikakulam is invalid for the reason that (i) the notice has been issued by the jurisdictional AO instead of by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as mandated by the e-assessment of income escaping assessment scheme. (ii) The notice is issued with prior approval of Pr. CCIT

Amitabha Sanyal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-58(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and the penalty levied is hereby deleted

ITA 359/KOL/2022[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Nov 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Years: 2011-12 Amitabha Sanyal, Income Tax Officer, 108B, Block-F, New Alipore, Ward – 58(4), Kolkata, Kolkata – 700053 Vs Aayakar Bhawan, (Pan: Aleps2352J) Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata - 700014 (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Amitabha Sanyal, AssesseeFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Barman, CIT, Sr. DR
Section 139(1)Section 148Section 250Section 254(2)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 275

appeal raised by the assessee are reproduced as under: “1. That the impugned order dated 11th April 2022 passed by the Ld. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Kolkata (the Assessing Officer) under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, levying penalty of Rs. 4,56,362 is without jurisdiction, illegal, invalid

Subhash Hiralal Sanchati, Surat vs. ITO, WD 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 591/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur30 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

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

For Appellant: Shri Parth Patni (C.A) (V.C.)For Respondent: Srhi Anup Singh (Addl. CIT)
Section 132(4)Section 144BSection 147Section 68

order dated 11.03.2022 passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here in after “ Act”), by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. 2 Subhash Hiralal Sanchati. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds: - “Ground 1 On the fact and in the circumstance

Surendra Sampatraj Surana, Mumbai vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4603/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Prabhash Shankarassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri Ashwin DharweFor Respondent: Shri Bhangepatil P.Ramesh,Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 56Section 57

appellant is against the assessment order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144B of the IT Act, 1961 dated 21.09.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. However, the grounds of appeal raised by the appellant are with regard to order dated 11.03.2022 passed by the Asst. Commissioner. CGST and Central

Ghanshyambhai Ambalal Patel, Kheda vs. The PCIT-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1007/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Oct 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble (Judicial Member), Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Divyakant Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Prothviraj Meena, CIT-D.R
Section 147Section 263Section 69A

cash deposit was "believed to be escaped income". This so called REASON is evident from assessment order u/s 147 dated 22.03.2022 passed by National Faceless Assessment centre as also, from para 2 of the Order u/s 263 dated 21.03.2024. 3. As is undisputed, and as concluded in para ... called order dated 22.03.2022 by National Faceless Assessment Centre considering the reply of appellant dated 16.03.2022 | Paper Book Page 35 to 121 with evidences of source of bank deposits] it is categorically stated that " Considering reply filed by the assesse, the income returned is accepted " 4. It is therefore clear

Vaidyanathan Kalaivani, Chennai vs. PCIT, Chennai

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 1542/CHNY/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai28 Oct 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Hon’Ble Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. A.S. Sriraman, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Niay Baran Som, IRS, CIT
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 2Section 263Section 56(2)

Commissioner: 2. The order of assessment sought to be revised was passed u/s 143(3) on 13.08.2021 by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi. The Assessing Officer while passing the order had issued notice u/s 143(2) dated: 31.3.2021 intimating that the assessee's case was selected

Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation)-Circle 3(2)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3316/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21 Morgan Stanley Mauritius Company Dy. Cit (International Taxation) – Ltd., Circle 3(2)(2), Vs. C/O S R B C & Associates Llp, 14Th 16Th Floor, Room No. 1615, Air India Floor, The Ruby, 29, Senapati Bapat Building Nariman Point, Marg, Dadar (West), Mumbai-400021. Mumbai-400028. Pan No. Aadcm 5927 G Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Sunil Moti LalaFor Respondent: Ms. Somogyan Pal, CIT-DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 253

assessment proceedings is invalid as the notice was issued by the assessment proceedings is invalid as the notice was issued by the National Faceless Assessment Centre instead of the jurisdictional aceless Assessment Centre instead of the jurisdictional aceless Assessment Centre instead of the jurisdictional assessing officer, even though international taxation

Cheil India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 29/DEL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Oct 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareeka.Yr. : 2020-21 Cheil India Private Limited Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), 7Th Floor, Two Horizon C.R. Building, Centre, New Delhi – 2 Golf Course Road, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001 (Pan: Aaccc2299Q) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Ms. Ananya Kapoor, Adv., Sh. TarunFor Respondent: Ms. Harpreet Kaur, Sr. DR
Section 115PSection 135Section 135(5)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250Section 270ASection 37Section 80GSection 80G(2)

Delhi dated 08.11.2023, relating to assessment year 2020-21 on the following grounds:- 1. That the assessment order dated 20.09.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘Assessment Centre’) under section 143(3) read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (“the Act”) and the order dated

Government Emplyees Co. Op. Credit Society Ltd., Bhavnagar vs. The ACIT, Circle-1, Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1560/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad24 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of An Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Jignesh Parikh, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Vishnu Kulkarni, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

ACIT ADDL/JCIT (A) Thane (for the sake of brevity "The Ld CIT(A)") erred in upholding the order of the Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre / ACIT Circle 1, Bhavnagar (for the sake of brevity "The ld AO") passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

The Society of Jesus Mary Joseph Snehalaya, Mangalagiri vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

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

ITA 369/VIZ/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

Section 12ASection 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 48Section 69Section 69A

Guntur is invalid for the reason that: i. The notice has been issued by the jurisdictional Assessing Officer instead of by the National Faceless Assessment Centre as mandated by the e assessment of income escaping assessment scheme. ii. The notice is issued with prior approval of Pr. CCIT, AP & Telangana ... assessee till date though the same is mandated by the CBDT guidelines for issue of notices under section 148. 4. The Assessment Unit, National Faceless Assessment Centre is not justified and the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre is not justified in confirming the determination of Rs.1

Jeyasekaran Balaji, Dindigul vs. ITO, Ward-1, Dindigul

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

ITA 2077/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member), SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri B. Agnus Jennifer, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashwin D Gowda, IRS, Addl. CIT
Section 147Section 148Section 194DSection 54Section 69A

Centre (NFAC), Delhi in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1065441098 (1) dated 06.06.2024. The assessment was framed by the Additional /Joint/Deputy /Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18 u/s.147 r.w.s. 144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ‘the Act’), vide order dated

Krishnan Saravanan, Oddanchatram vs. Principal Commissioner of Income-Tax-1, Madurai

ITA 1523/CHNY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Hon’Ble Shri Manu Kumar Giriआयकरअपील सं./ Ita No.1523/Chny/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2013-2014) Shri. Krishnan Saravanan, Vs. The Principal Commissioner Of 383/E-5D, Bye Pass Road, Income Tax-1, Oddanchatram 624 619. Madurai. [Pan: Asyps 5316H] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent By : Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, Irs, Cit.

For Appellant: Shri. Bharath Janarthanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri.S.R.Karuppusamy, IRS, CIT
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194CSection 263Section 40Section 40a

academic exercise. 3. Ground No.9 raised by the assessee is as under: ‘’The learned Respondent erred in revising the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘NFASC’ in short) passed u/s 147 r.w. 144B of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act when infact ... appeal before us. 9. The ld. Counsel for the assessee argued that the ld. PCIT is erred in revising the order of the National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘NFASC’ in short) passed u/s 147 r.w. section 144B of the Act by invoking the provisions of section 263 of the Act when

Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Corporate Circle 1(1), Chennai vs. Doosan Power Systems India Private Limited, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1149/CHNY/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Oct 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri S. R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No.: 1149/Chny/2023 िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Deputy Commissioner Of Doosan Power Systems India Income Tax, V. Private Limited, Corporate Circle -1(1), 18/2A, Sennerkuppam, Bye Chennai. Pass Road, Poonamallee, Chennai – 600 056. [Pan:Aabcb-5946-J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/Appellant By : Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, Cit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, Ca सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 20.08.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23.10.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. Clement Ramesh Kumar, CITFor Respondent: Shri. Sandeep Bagmar, CA
Section 144BSection 147Section 195Section 40Section 9(1)(vi)

relation to incidental expenses such as port dues, surcharges, demurrage/ detention charges, etc. The Company has been subjected to reassessment proceedings, wherein the National Faceless Assessment Centre (‘Ld. FAO’) in the final assessment order passed under section 147 read with section 144B of the Income

Latitude Infraventures, Nagpur vs. PCIT, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 350/NAG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, to the AO, with a direction to the AO to make the assessment, by conducting inquiries and verification of the claim of the assessee ... assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, to the AO, with a direction to the AO to make the assessment, by conducting inquiries and verification of the claim of the assessee

Latitude Infraventures, Nagpur vs. PCIT, Nagpur-1, Nagpur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2017–18

ITA 349/NAG/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur22 Oct 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri K.M. Roy, Accountant, Member

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Sandipkumar Salunke
Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 263Section 263(2)

assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, to the AO, with a direction to the AO to make the assessment, by conducting inquiries and verification of the claim of the assessee ... assessment u/s 147 read with section 144 read with section 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 29.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre, to the AO, with a direction to the AO to make the assessment, by conducting inquiries and verification of the claim of the assessee

Asianet Star Communications Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

ITA 934/CHNY/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Oct 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Porus F Kaka, Senior AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl.CIT
Section 10Section 10(38)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 154

Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1045220218 (1) & 1045219605(1) both dated 06.09.2022. The assessment was framed by the Assessing Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi for the ITA Nos.934 & 935/Chny/2022 assessment year 2018-19 u/s.143(3) r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter the ‘Act’) vide