“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

Ashok Vishnu Wagh, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward1(4), Nashik

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 840/PUN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr. Naimish DixitFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 144Section 250Section 69A

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2011-12, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061237046(1), dated 21.02.2024, involving proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both

Amol Chimanrao Patil, Jalgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, Wrd-2(3), Jalgaon

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 325/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058115442(1), dated 21.11.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Case called twice

Sangram Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Ahmednagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Ahmednagar

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 261/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak

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

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060202251(1), dated 29.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both

Kubix Realties LLP, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle -14 Pune, Pune

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

ITA 1260/PUN/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1260/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Shri Neelesh KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath Murkunde

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 151Section 151(1)Section 292BSection 3

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 23.04.2024 for the assessment year 2007-08. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee is a company incorporated under the provisions

Sheetal Sandeep Meher, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward1(2), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1000/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1000/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Sheetal Sandeep Meher, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 3Rd Floor, Pitruchaya Jalgaon. Building, Nehru Chowk, Navi Peth, Jalgaon- 425001. Pan : Aqupm5982D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanket Joshi Revenue By : Shri Umashankar Prasad Date Of Hearing : 22.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 31.07.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. The Present Appeal Is Filed Belatedly I.E. With The Delay Of 13 Days. The Appellant Furnished An Affidavit Praying For Condonation Of Delay In The Circumstances Mentioned Therein.

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Umashankar Prasad

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 271(1)(c)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI G. D. PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY

Ishwar Education and Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemption Ward-2, Pune

ITA 913/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s twin appeals, for assessment years 2016-2017 & 2017-2018, arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056461938(1) and 1053912819(1), dated 23.09.2023 and 23.06.2023, in proceedings u/s.154 and 143(1) of the Income ... amend, to alter, or to modify the grounds of appeal if and when required.” 4. We next note the learned CIT(A)-NFAC’s impugned lower appellate discussion in the “lead” assessment year 2016- 2017 reads as under : “6. I have gone through the rectification order and the submissions made

Ishwar Education and Charitable Trust, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Exmeption Ward-2, Pune

ITA 1174/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: CA Ashok KotharyFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

Income Tax Officer, Nashik vs. Smita Ashok Sonawane, Nashik

ITA 1119/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 144ASection 148Section 250Section 54BSection 63

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: In this case Revenue has filed the appeal against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeal)[NFAC] u/sec.250 of the C.O.No.10/PUN/2024 [A] & ITA No.1119/PUN/2023 [R] Smita Ashok Sonawane Income Tax Act, dated 30.08.2023 for the A.Y.2013-14. The Revenue has raised ... following grounds of appeal : “i) Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of case, the Ld.CIT(A), NFAC was justified in directing the AO to delete the addition of Rs. 2,74,53,736/, ignoring the applicability of the Hon’ble Supreme Court decision in the case

Rsvcpl-Alam (Jv), Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 407/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Ms. Mrudulatha, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

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

RSVCPL-ALAM (JV), Hyderabad (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) , National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 23.02.2024 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under : “1.The order

Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Circle -16(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 39/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Ms. TH Vijaya Lakshmi, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

Pathfinder Publishing Pvt. Ltd. (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 23.11.2023 for the AY 2017-18. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: ITA No.39/Hyd/2024

Shree Estates, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

ITA 469/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.469/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shree Estates Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 14(1) Pan:Adifs9997B Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri M.V. Prasad, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Pranav, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 09/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri M.V. Prasad, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Pranav, CIT(DR)

Section 68

आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 2.08.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee M/s. Shree Estates is a partnership firm registered under

Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Tenali vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Tenali

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 73/VIZ/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.73/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18) Kammela Srinivasara Rao, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, D.No. 7-14-9, Harikrishna Ward-1, Medical Agencies, Battavari Tenali. Street, Ganganammapet, Tenali, Andhra Pradesh. Pan: Akzpk3519M (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 04/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133ASection 139(4)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 208Section 234B(1)Section 249(4)(b)Section 271ASection 69A

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059164706(1), dated 28/12/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 144 of the Income ... order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)- NAFC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by invoking the provisions of section 249(4)(b) of the Act by observing as under

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 249/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.249/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Vijaya Durga Penumala, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 74-8-20, Siri Apartments-2, Ward-2(1), Prakash Nagar, Rajahmundry, Rajahmundry. Andhra Pradesh – 533103. Pan: Cxdpp1606F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/07/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(c)Section 50C

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059602715(1), dated 11/01/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income ... penalty order issued by the Ld. AO U/s. 271(1)(c) of the Act, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, passed ex-parte order as there is no response from the assessee with respect to the notices

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 238/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

filed by the assessee against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059603688(1), dated 11/01/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Act and DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059601065 ... dated 30/12/2018. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC passed ex-parte order since there is no response on behalf of the assessee with respect to the notices issued

Vijaya Durga Penumala, Rajahmundry vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 237/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.237/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2016-17)

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 154

Jami Pradhamika Vyavasayasharakara Parapathi Sangham Ltd., Vizianagaram vs. Income-Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 206/VIZ/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 206/Viz/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17) Jami Pradhamika Vyavasaya Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahakara Parapathi Vizianagaram. Sanghamltd., Vizianagaram. Pan: Aabaj1927F (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""थ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri I. Kama Sastry, Ar ""ाथ" की ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri I. Kama Sastry, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(3)Section 69A

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1063565941(1), dated 28/03/2024 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income ... dated 25/03/2022. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal belatedly before the Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC with a delay of 309 days. 2. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, did not condone the delay of 309 days in filing the appeal and dismissed

M G Gopal, Vijayawada vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 270/VIZ/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No.270/Viz/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19) M.G. Gopal, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Vijayawada. Income Tax, Pan: Afwpm6317H Circle-2(1), Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Ma Rahim, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar सुनवाई क" तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 22/05/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of : 31/07/2024 Pronouncement O R D E R

For Appellant: Sri MA Rahim, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44A

filed by the assessee is against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC”] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055949390(1), dated 11/09/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income ... passed the assessment order dated 23/04/2021. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee filed an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, after considering the submissions of the assessee, and on perusal of the facts and circumstances

Airovient Fans & Systems Private Limited, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 11(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 638/KOL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 133(6)Section 194Section 194CSection 37(1)

ground that the payments to a substantial number of parties could not be verified. 1.1. Before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] the assessee averred that all possible details available with him were presented before the AO and it was demonstrated ... Private Limited. 1.3. Aggrieved this action, he has approached the ITAT through the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in confirming the addition to the extent of Rs. 1,80,01,565/- incurred towards business expediency on account of expenditure incurred towards various

Eastern India Educational Institution, Kolkata vs. DCIT(Exemption), Circle - 1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 616/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Sanjay Garg & Sri Sanjay Awasthi

Section 14A

This resulted in an addition of Rs. 43,62,620/-. 1.1. Aggrieved with this action, the assessee approached the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ld. 'CIT(A)'] who did not accept the contention of the assessee that in the computation of income there ... appellant is before us through the following grounds of appeal: “1. That the order dated 27.02.2024 passed by learned CIT (Appeals)(NFAC) is bad in law as well as on facts. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (Appeals) erred

Axon Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 538/KOL/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishrai.T.A. No.538/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Axon Mercantile Pvt. Ltd.………....................…...……………....Appellant 36, Gopi Basu Lane, Kolkata – 700012. [Pan: Aacca7870M] Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Kolkata.…………............................…..…..... Respondent Appearances By: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. Cit- Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : June 05, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : July 31, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 17.10.2023 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Appeal Is Barred By Limitation Of 90 Days. A Separate Application For Condonation Of Delay Has Been Filed, Which Is Also Supported With The Affidavit Of The Director Of The Assessee Company, The Contents Of The Said Affidavit Are Reproduced As Under:

Section 147Section 250

company. I.T.A. No.538/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Axon Mercantile Pvt. Ltd 2. That an appeal was filed on 28.02.2020before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC against the assessment order u/s 147/143(3) dated 27.12.2019 for AY: 2012-13. 3. That the said appeal was dismissed