“NFAC”

Assessment ProceduresSection 144BSection 144B48,618 judgments

The decision most relied on for NFAC is Tecumseh Products India (P.) Ltd. v. DCIT (174 Taxmann.com 1203), cited in 43 judgments on BharatTax.

Leading authorities on NFAC

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.

Aggarwal v. NFAC

127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court

citing judgments

Denying a personal hearing when specifically requested, especially after a search and during a pandemic, violates the principles of natural justice. The assessment and appellate proceedings themselves were conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Hire Purchase (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

128 Taxmann.com 190 · High Court

citing judgments

Failure to grant a personal hearing to an assessee when income is likely to be varied based on submitted evidence violates the principles of natural justice and renders the assessment order invalid.

Prem Brothers Infrastructure LLP v. NFAC

142 Taxmann.com 38 · 2022 · High Court

citing judgments

When initiating penalty proceedings, the Assessing Officer (AO) must specify the limb of the charge, indicating whether the penalty is for concealment of income or furnishing inaccurate particulars. This requirement is essential for valid penalty proceedings.

Vinodkumar Lakshmipathi v. CIT (Appeals) NFAC

145 Taxmann.com 235 · 2022 · ITAT

citing judgments

The ITAT held that failure to file Form 67 by the due date for filing the return of income is not fatal to the claim for foreign tax credit. The appellate authority can condone the delay in filing Form 67.

Alrameez Construction (P.) Ltd. v. NFAC

152 Taxmann.com 382 · 2023 · ITAT

citing judgments

Penalty under Section 270A for under-reporting or mis-reporting of income cannot be sustained if additions are made under Section 56(2)(x) and the penalty notice fails to specify the limb under which proceedings are initiated.

Sanjay Gupta v. CIT

366 ITR 18 · 2014 · High Court

citing judgments

When the quantum of income is remanded to the Assessing Officer, the issue of penalty for undisclosed income should also be remanded to the Assessing Officer.

Saltwater Studio LLP v. NFAC

157 Taxmann.com 749 · 2023 · Reported

citing judgments

A penalty levied for misreporting under section 270A is unsustainable if the Assessing Officer fails to establish how the assessee's case falls within the specific instances of misreporting mentioned in section 270A(9). This requires an application of mind and adherence to the principles of natural justice.

Judgments citing NFAC

Income Tax Officer, Coimbatore vs. Acl Industries Limited, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2592/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K (Vice President), SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, CITFor Respondent: None

Section 115JSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal filed by the Department is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year

The India Cements Ltd., Chennai vs. DCIT, Corporate Circle-1(1), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1708/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Shri. R. Vijayaraghavan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Shiva Srinivas, C.I.T

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-18, dated 11.04.2025. 2. The brief facts of the case emanating from the records are that an assessee

Sree Maruthi Co-Operative Housing Society, Bangalore, Karnataka vs. ITO Ward 7(2)(2), Bangalore, Karnataka

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

ITA 2164/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri P.R. Suresh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian .S, JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER This is an appeal filed by the assessee challenging the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 13/09/2024 in respect of the A.Y. 2017-18 and raised the following grounds: “1. The assessment order passed ... dated 16/12/2019 is opposed to law, facts and circumstances of the case. Page 2 of 5 2. The Learned CIT (Appeals) — NFAC has erred in confirming the disallowance U/s 80P(2)(d) of Rs.26,91,423/- made by the Assessing Officer vide his order dated

Essen Consulting, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7511/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

Date of pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench: The instant appeal of the assessee filed against two separate orders of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year

Essen Consulting, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7510/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 250

Maa Rupadevi Nagari Sahakari Path Sanstha Maryadi, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7499/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2015-16 Maa Rupadevi Nagari Sahakari Income Tax Officer, Path Sanstha Maryadit, Ward-1(1), Pathebahadur Chawl, Vs. Thane. Tekdi Road No.33, Roopadevi, Wagle Estate, Thane (West), Maharashtra-400606. Pan : Aactm2530R (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Satish Kadam For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 28-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Satish KadamFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 17-10-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16, sustaining the levy of penalty u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income

Edelweiss Crossover Opportunities Fund, Santacruz East, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Ward 22(1)(1), Piramal Chambers

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

ITA 7439/MUM/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 10Section 115USection 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “E” BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Technocraft Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT. 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7423/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, Adv. a/w Shri Akash GogariCAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 37

Date of pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per Bench: Both the appeals of the assessee filed against the separate order of the NFAC, Delhi (for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A), order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment years

Technocraft Industries (India) Limited, Mumbai vs. Asst. CIT 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7422/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

For Appellant: Shri Tarang Mehta, Adv. a/w Shri Akash GogariCAFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 37

Better Value Leasing & Finance Limited, Mumbai vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Circle 2(1)(1), Aayakar Bhawan, Mumbai

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

ITA 6082/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE (Judicial Member), SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Sathe, CAFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui (SR DR)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity the “Ld. CIT(A)”], order passed under section 250 of the Income tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year

Mark Engineers (India) Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 14(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 5757/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2018-19 Mark Engineers (India) Deputy Commissioner Of Private Limited, Income Tax, Ci/1302, Hyde Park, Plot 8-10, Vs. Circle-14(1)(1), Sector 35/G, Kharghar, Aayakar Bhavan, Navi Mumbai-410210. M.K. Road, Pan : Aaacm4258R Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri B. Shankar For Revenue : Shri Annavaran Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 18-07-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19, Sustaining The Levy Of Penalty U/S.270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟).

For Appellant: Shri B. ShankarFor Respondent: Shri Annavaran Kosuri

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 36(1)(va)Section 40

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 18-07-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19, sustaining the levy of penalty u/s.270A of the Income

Bhavik Shashikant Thakkar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 27(1), Vashi Mumbai

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

ITA 5208/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarbhavik Shashikant Thakkar Vs Assistant Commissioner Of Income G 601 Kukreja Palace Tax, Ward 27(1), Mumbai 4Th Floor, Tower No.6, Vashi Station Opportunity Pok, Maharashtra-400075 Complex, Vashi-400703 Pan: Acypt3095J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Nishit Gandhi, Adv Respondent By : Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (Cit Dr) Date Of Hearing : 28/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (Jm): The Instant Appeal Of The Assessee Filed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [For Brevity ‘The Ld. Cit(A)], Order Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (For Brevity ‘The Act’) For Assessment Year 2012-13, Date Of Order 28.11.2022. The Impugned Order Emanated From The Order Of The Ld. Acit-27(1), Mumbai (For Brevity The “Ld. Ao”), Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Date Of Order 24.03.2015 Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Rajni Rani Roy (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 250

pronouncement : 03/02/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year

Cool Diamond Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer - 12(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed, subject to verification as directed above

ITA 5085/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Renu Jauhriassessment Year: 2013-14 Cool Diamond Private Ward Ito -12(1)(1), Limited, Room No. 129, Aayakar 2Nd Floor, Plot No. 97, Myco Bhawan, M K. Road, Vs. Industrial Area, Misc Industrial Mumbai – 400020. Area, Andheri East, Mumbai – 400093. Pan – Aadcc6707 (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.R. Revenue By : Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry: This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.06.2025, Impugned Herein, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac)/Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (In Short Ld. Commissioner) U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short ‘The Act’) For The A.Y. 2013-14. 2. In The Instant Case, An Information Was Received By The Ao From The Ddit (Inv.) Unit – 4 – Surat, With Regard To The Circular Transaction Of Rs.2,11,19,942/- By The Assessee With M/S. Seven Star Jewels Proprietary. On Perusing The Information, The Ao Observed That It Is Apparent That The Assessee Has Earned An Income To The Tune Of Rs.2,11,19,942/- But Has Not Included This 2 Cool Diamond Private Limited

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya, Ld. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra S. Mahajan, SR. D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

N N Sippy Productions Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4961/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Prabhash Shankarn.N. Sippy Productions V/S. Income Tax Officer – 13(1)(1) Private Limited बनाम 225, Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. A4, Shalimar Chs, Road, Mumbai – 400 054, Santacruz, Mumbai – Maharashtra 400054, Maharashtra स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aagcn6412N Appellant/अपीलार्थी .. Respondent/प्रतिवादी

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Talera, ARFor Respondent: Shri Leyaqat Ali Aafaqui, (Sr. DR)

Section 133ASection 147Section 250Section 68

Sippy Productions Private Limited 2. The grounds of appeal are as under: 1. The order passed by CIT(A)-NFAC u/s 250 of the Act dated 21-07-2025 for A.Y. 2020-21 upholding addition of Rs.5.50 crores inter alia treating business transactions as unexplained deposits

ITO, Thane vs. Murlidhar M Pichad HUF, Thane

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

ITA 4857/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year : 2022-23 Income Tax Officer, Murlidhar M Pichad Huf, 6Th Floor, Flat No. 508, Bldg. 02, Ashar It Park, Vs. Gawand Baug Ashoka, Thane, Pokharan Road No. 2, Maharashtra-400604. Thane. Maharashtra-400601 Pan : Aaihm4676E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Gaurang Shah (Virtually Present) For Revenue : Shri Umashankar Prasad, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-01-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03-02-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Gaurang ShahFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad, CIT-DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

This is an appeal filed by the Revenue against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 19-05-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the assessee

Income Tax Officer, Cumballa Hill vs. Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Dharma Sthanak, Chinchpokali

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4824/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Jagadishincome Tax Officer Seth Damji Laxmichand Jain Room No. 617, 6Th Floor, Dharma Sthanak Mtnl Building, Peddar Road, Vs. 64 Dr. Ambedkar Road, Cumballa Hill, Mumbai-400 026 Opp. Kalchowki, Post Office, Chichpokali, Mumbai-400 012 Pan/Gir No. Aacts 2218 L (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal & Shri Ravi Ganatra Respondent By : Shri Arun Kanti Datta – Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of Order Dated 26.05.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi Pertaining To The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2012-13. 2. The Effective Grounds Raised By The Department Are As Under: 1. "On The Facts & Circumstances In Allowing Of The Case & In Law, The Ld Cit(A) Erred The Benefit Of Indexed Cost Of Acquisition Trust Registered U/S. 48 Of The Act To A U/S. 12A, Disregarding Dated 19.06.1968. The Cbdt Circular No 5-P(Lxx- 2. "On The Facts & Circumstances Allowing Accumulation Of The Case & In Law, The Cit(A) Erred In Same Being Under Section 11(1)(A) On Capital Gains, Despite The Resulting In Already Deemed As Applied Under Section 11(1A), Thereby Double Deduction". 3. "On The Facts & Circumstances To Appreciate Of The Case & In Law, He Ld. Cit(A) Failed J.K. Synthetics The Ratio Of Decision Of Hon'Ble Supreme Court In The Case Of Apex Court Ltd. V. Union Of India (199 Itr 43) (Sc) Wherein The Hon'Ble Has Categorically Held That No Legislation Permit Double Can Be Construed To Specifically Deduction In Respect Of The Same Expenditure Unless Provided.

For Appellant: Shri Hemant Jawahar Lal &For Respondent: Shri Arun Kanti Datta – CIT DR

Section 11Section 11(1)(a)Section 11(2)Section 11ASection 12ASection 48

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: The present appeal by the department arises out of order dated 26.05.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi pertaining to the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2012-13. 2. The effective grounds raised by the department are as under

ACIT, Circle 24(1) Mumbai, Mumbai vs. Nilkamal Crates & Containers, Mumbai

ITA 3763/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai03 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am

For Appellant: Shri Prashant Ghumare, AdvFor Respondent: C.O. No. 146/Mum/2025 in I.T.A. No. 3763/Mum/2025

Section 132Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149(1)(b)Section 151Section 35(1)(i)Section 35(1)(ii)

aforesaid appeal of revenue and the Cross Objection (CO) by the assessee are directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / NFAC, Delhi (for short “The Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 31.03.2025, for the Assessment Year (AY) 2016-17, which in turn arises from the order under section ... relied on the decision of ITAT, ITA No.3763 & CO No. 146/Mum/2025 Nilkamal Crates & Containers Mumbai in the case of Aakruti Ketan Mehta Vs NFAC in ITA No. 3744/Mum/2024 for AY 2016-17 (26.08.2024), wherein a similar issue was came up and decided following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court

Ragini Bhadauria, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 49(1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed

ITA 9134/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 9134/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2017-18 Ragini Bhadauria, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O Sunila Chanana, Ca, Ward-49(1), New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amhpb7637F Assessee By: Sh. S. Kumar, Adv. Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1083905805(1) Dated 19.12.2025, In Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. S. Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 56(2)(vii)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Balhara Traders, Sonipat vs. Assessing Officer, Sonipat

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 7291/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godaraita No. 7291/Del/2025 : Asstt. Year: 2020-21 Balhara Traders, Vs Assessing Officer, 39B, First Floor, New Subzi Mandi, Nwr, 94, Range-60, Ward-1, Sonipat, Haryana-131001 Sonipat, Haryana-131001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aahfb1732H Assessee By: Sh. R. K. Vashist, Adv. & Sh. Gaurav Sahil, Ca Revenue By : Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.02.2026 Order This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2020-21 Arises Against The Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078383900(1) Dated 11.07.2025, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “The Act”).

For Appellant: Sh. R. K. Vashist, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Manoj Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member ITA No

Subhadra Bhardwaj, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward -4(3) Gurgaon, Gurgoan

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 5532/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Subhadra Bhardwaj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, House No. 1367, Ward-4(3), Sector-4, Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan: Ajnpb7398G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Samyak Jain, Adv. Department By Ms. Harpreet Kaur Hansra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1078290918(1), Dated 08.07.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 144 Of The Income- Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Heard Both The Parties. Case File Perused. 2. Learned Counsel Submits That On Account Of Communication Gaps At Various Levels, The Assessee Could Not Appear To Plead & Prove All The Relevant Facts In The Lower Appellate Proceedings & Therefore, Larger Interest Of Justice Would Be Met, In Case, The Matter May Be Restored Back To The Cit(A). The Revenue Vehemently Support The Learned Lower Authorities Action Making Addition(S) Herein On Merits. 3. Be That As It May, The Fact Remains That Possibility Of Some Communication Gaps At Various Levels In Such An Instance Could Not Be Altogether Ruled Out. It Is Therefore Deemed Appropriate In The Larger Interest Of Justice To Restore The Assessee’S Instant Appeal Back To The Cit(A) For His Afresh Appropriate Adjudication, Within Three Effective Opportunities Of Hearing At The Appellant’S Risk & Responsibility, In Consequential Proceedings. Ordered Accordingly. 4. This Assessee’S Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Order Pronounced In The Open Court On 3Rd February, 2026

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘F’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI