← 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

Sundaram Subramanian Rep. by Legal Heir S Sundaram, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2420/CHNY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

Assessee for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013- 14 and 2014-15. The said orders emanate from the assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the :-2-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025

Sundaram Subramanian, Pudukkottai vs. ITO, Circle-2(1), Trichy

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee are partly allowed

ITA 2419/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T
Section 147Section 148Section 251Section 68

Assessee for the Assessment Years (A.Y.) 2013- 14 and 2014-15. The said orders emanate from the assessment framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the :-2-: ITA. Nos:2419 & 2420/Chny/2025

ACIT-1(1), Indore vs. Kriti Nutrients Limited, Indore

The appeal of the Revenue is allowed for statistical

ITA 780/IND/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Indore09 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 246ASection 250Section 253

780/Ind/2024 A.Y. 2021-22 (B)Letter dated. 27.02.2024- PD Nagar & Co. Date : 27.02.2024 To, The Commissioner of Income tax (A), National Faceless Assessment Centre, DELHI Hon’ble Sir, In the matter of M/s Kriti Nutrients Ltd, Plot No.10, 8" floor, Brilliant Sapphire, Scheme No. 78, Vijay Nagar, Indore PAN : AAACK7170L

Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Jasdan vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)(2), Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed, in above terms

ITA 487/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha(Hybrid Hearing) Kalpesh Ravjibhai Sojitra, Vs. The Ito, Prop. Sojitra Petrolium, Bypass Ward-2(1)(2), Circle Atkot Road, Jasdan, Rajkot 360050, Rajkot-( Guj) "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Bqmps8120G (/Appellant) (/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh Parekh, Ld ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

erred in law as well as on facts upholding the assessment order passed by the assessment unit (National Faceless Assessment Centre) u/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts appeal dismissing without considering the facts and merits

Sri Gangadhareshwara Souhardha Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha, Koppal vs. ITO Ward - 1 Koppal, Koppal

ITA 1775/BANG/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year :2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Deepak, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian – JCIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

Assessee against the Assessment order dated 03.08.2021 passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act) by the National Faceless Assessment Centre was dismissed. 2. The Assessee has raised the grounds of Appeal but the only issue involved in this Appeal is denial of deduction

Chintan Dwarkadas Chotai, Junagadh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 636/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR
Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 80G

according this condonation. 2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the appellants case, the Ld. Assessing Officer of the National Faceless Assessment Centre has grossly erred by alleging the Appellant of making a bogus donation to political party where the Appellant in fact has made donation

Mandar Rawool, Thane vs. ITO, Kudal

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2099/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune07 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2099/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Mandar Rawool, V The Income Tax 2107, L Wing, Bhoomi Acres S Officer, Kudal. Near Hiranandani Estate Internal Road, Opp Suraj Water Park, Kavesar, Thane – 400615 Pan:Attpr3716Q Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Harshavardhan Vivek Bapat Revenue By Shri Ambarnath Khule – Jcit(Through Virtual) Date Of Hearing 25/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 07/01/2026 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2022-23Dated 10.07.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 22.03.2024.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 143Section 143(3)Section 153CSection 250Section 250(68)

Nagar vs Dcit, Central Circle, Noida (ITAT Delhi)  S.K. Chakraborty & Sons vs Union of India (HC - Calcutta)  Fayeza Muffadal Contractor vs National Faceless Assessment Centre (HC-Bombay)  Andaman Timber Industries vs Commissioner of Central Excise, Kolkata -II (SC)  CIT vs Chetan Das Lachman Das (HC - Delhi)  C.I.T. (Central) vs Daulat

Giesecke and Devrient India Pvt Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT (OSD), New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal in ITA No

ITA 1428/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 119Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 144B(8)Section 144C(13)Section 144C(5)

That the impugned Final Assessment order dated 30.05.2022 is non-est, having being passed by the ACIT(OSD) as opposed to the National Faceless Assessment Centre ("NFAC") which had validly assumed jurisdiction over the Assessee. 3 ITA No. 1428/Del/2022 & SA No. 166/Del/2022 9. That on the facts of the case ... affirmed by the Bombay High Court in the aforenoted paragraphs of Vodafone Idea and in Shell India Markets (P.) Ltd. v. Addt. CIT. National Faceless Assessment Centre [2022] 139 taxmann.com 335/443 ITR 366 (Bom)/Judgment dated 14 February 2022 in WP No. 3298/2021. The relevant paragraph of the decision

Arundhati Dnyandeo Kalane, Ahilyanagar vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ahilyanagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed as per the terms indicated above

ITA 623/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.623/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale
Section 147Section 250Section 69

contents of said Affidavit reads as under: “2. That for the A.Y. 2013-14, the learned Assessing Officer of Income Tax. National Faceless Assessment Centre vide his order dt. 17.03.2022 made addition of Rs.73,62,600 u/s.69 of the I.T. Act 1961 for the reasons as mentioned in the said

George Molakal Mathew, Pune vs. ITO International Tax Ward-3, Pune

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

ITA 2236/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of the Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade
Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 3

challenged the validity of reopening of the assessment u/s 147 of the IT Act and also challenged passing of the assessment order by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi, before Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, however, Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC has not adjudicated these legal grounds. 7. Considering the totality

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3048/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : : 16.12.2025 : 01.01.2026 These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”). The impugned orders arise out of the assessments framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the "AO”) u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pertaining ... Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is invalid, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee for the A

ITA 3047/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Venkataraman, FCA &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 201Section 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”). The impugned orders arise out of the assessments framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the “AO”) u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), pertaining ... Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is invalid, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

ITA 3046/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:3046, 3047 & 3048/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Prabhakar, 17 Kingston Apartments, M G Ramachandran Road Kalakshetra Colony, Chennai - 600 090. [Pan: Bcgpp-8061-H] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By Ito, Vs. Non-Corp Ward -15(1), Chennai. (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) : Mr. R. Venkataraman, Fca & Mr. K. Vishwa Padmanabhan, Fca. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. Arv Sreenivasan, Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Am : These Three Appeals Preferred By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders, Each Dated 25.08.2025, Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”). The Impugned Orders Arise Out Of The Assessments Framed By The National Faceless Assessment Centre (Hereinafter Referred To As The "Ao”) U/S.147 R.W.S 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act"), Pertaining To Assessment Years 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18 :-2-:

For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “Ld. CIT(A)”). The impugned orders arise out of the assessments framed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre (hereinafter referred to as the "AO”) u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"), pertaining ... Without prejudice to the above, that the Ld.CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the assessment order dated 23.03.2022 passed by the National Faceless Assessment Centre [“Assessing Officer”] u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Act for the Assessment Year 2015-16 is invalid, void ab initio, and liable to be quashed

Syntel Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 11(2)(2), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 & 4 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6863/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan Ved &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta
Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234CSection 37

assessment order to be invalid and void ab initio, having been passed by the Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax/ Income-tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi without issuing a mandatory show cause notice as required under the National Faceless Assessment Scheme, 2019. Addition of Rs.33,83,80,861 under

Maharashtra Airport Development Company Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi

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

ITA 1366/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailshri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarmaharashtra Airport Development Company World Trade Centre, Tower-1, 8Th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ............... Appellant Pan: Aadcm9623M

For Appellant: Shri Rushab MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 57

VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Maharashtra Airport Development Company World Trade Centre, Tower-1, 8th Floor, Cuffe Parade, Mumbai - 400005 ............... Appellant PAN: AADCM9623M v/s National Faceless Assessment Centre, Income Tax Department, Delhi ……………… Respondent 2nd Floor, E-Ramp, Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium, Delhi. Assessee by : Shri Rushab Mehta Revenue by : Shri Vivek Perampurna

Schineler India Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dcitrg 15(3) (2), Mumbai

In the result, ground no. 6 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 724/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2017-18 Schindler India Pvt Ltd Dcit Schindler House, Main Street, Range 15(3) (2) Hiranandani Gardens, Powai, Vs. Mumbai Mumbai - 400076 (Pan: Aaecs1548J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee : Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal & Ms. Riddhi Maru, Cas Revenue : Shri Ajay Chandra, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.12.2025 O R D E R Per Girish Agrawal: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Final Assessment Order Passed By National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (Nfac) Vide Order No. Itba/Ast/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) Dated 22.02.2022 U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144C(13) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”) Pursuant To The Directions Of Ld. Dispute Resolution Panel-2, Mumbai, (Drp) Vide Order No. Itba/Drp/F/144C(5)/2021-22/1039079646(1), Dated 25.01.2022, Passed U/S. 144C(5), For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Grounds Taken By Assessee Are Reproduced As Under: “Ground I. Legal Grounds

For Appellant: Ms. Chandani Shah, Ms. Niddhi Agarwal and Ms. Riddhi Maru, CAsFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Chandra, CIT DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C(5)Section 92CSection 92C(3)

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the final assessment order passed by National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi (NFAC) vide order no. ITBA/AST/S/143(3)/2021-22/1040015716(1) dated 22.02.2022 u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Sree Narayana Guru Cooperative Thrift and Credit Society Limited, Delhi vs. ITO 43(6), New Delhi

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

ITA 5166/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year : 2018-19 Sree Narayana Guru Cooperative Vs. Ito, Thrift & Credit Society Ltd., Ward 43(6), Sree Narayana Kendra, Delhi. Rb2, Pocket-3, Sector-7, D, Dwarka, Delhi– 110 075. Pan: Aacas8347K

For Appellant: Shri KVSR Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Ms Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI VIMAL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SMT. RENU

Rajesh Jaiswal, Ramayan vs. Ward 1(4), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 328/IND/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore23 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2013-14 Rajesh Jaiswal, Ito Ward 1(4) Ramayan, Scheme No.54, Indore बनाम/ Indore Vs. (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Abnpj7642K Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 10.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 23.12.2025

Section 144Section 147Section 253(5)

Income-Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.03.2022 passed by learned National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 & 144B of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2013-14, the assessee

Nirjeet Singh, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 52(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5151/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vimal Kumar & Smt. Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2022-23 Shri Nirjeet Singh Vs Ito Ward 52(1) 117, Palika Bazar New Delhi Connaught Place New Delhi- 110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ablps0458C

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ankush Kalra, SR. DR
Section 250Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 270A(9)(c)Section 274

NFAC, Delhi erred in confirming the penalty u/s 270A of the Act imposed by the Assessment Unit of the National Faceless Assessment Centre. (b) The order being arbitrary, fallacious, and unwarranted must be quashed with directions for appropriate relief. ” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee

Abhishek Grover, Hansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawan Hisar

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

ITA 4304/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri M Balaganesh & Shri Vimal Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 Abhishek Grover, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 328, Ward No.18, Aayakar Bhawan, Gali Activity School, Subhash Hisar Nagar, Hisar-125033 (Haryana) (Haryana) Pan: Auppg0986N (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘A’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VIMAL