← All Phrases

“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
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.

Aggarwal v. NFAC
127 Taxmann.com 637 · High Court
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

Naveet Sharma, Vill.Nagabag P.O.Bandrol vs. ITO Ward Kullu, Kullu

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

ITA 744/CHANDI/2023[AY 2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Amitoz Singh Kamboj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2017-18 against the order dated 14.09.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. The following grounds have been taken : “1. That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the order passed ... NFAC u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('the Act'), ex-parte which is bad in law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. The Ld. CTT(A) has erred in taw and Facts by confirming the addition of Rs. 30,28,000/- on account of the same

Science and Tech Enter Park Step, Thapar University, Patiala vs. CIT Exemptions, C R Building Chandigarh

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

ITA 742/CHANDI/2023[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2023-24

Bench: This Tribunal. The Ld. Ar Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Bansal, CIT, DR
Section 12ASection 12A(1)(ac)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण,च"डीगढ़ "यायपीठ , च"डीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH ‘B’ CHANDIGARH

The Khanyan Multipurpose Coop Agricultural Service Societyltd, Village Khanyan vs. DCIT, Circle, Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 719/CHANDI/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2016-2017

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

assessee's appeals for assessment year 2015- 16 & 2016-17 respectively against the separate orders dated 17.07.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. 2. As both the appeals involve identical facts and issues, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order

The Khanyan Multipurpose Coop Agricultural Service Society Ltd, Village Khanyan vs. DCIT Circle Mandi Gobindgarh Hq Sirhind

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 718/CHANDI/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: This Tribunal. The Assessee Has Filed An Application For Condonation Of Delay Explaining The Reasons For The Delay

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 80P

assessee's appeals for assessment year 2015- 16 & 2016-17 respectively against the separate orders dated 17.07.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. 2. As both the appeals involve identical facts and issues, therefore, these were heard together and are being disposed of by a common order

Punjab National Bank, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer (TDS), Mandi

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

ITA 368/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Inder Mohan Chhabra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 201

A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2012-13 against the order dated 14.03.2023 passed by the ld. CIT(Appeals) NFAC, Delhi. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is unjustified and unethical

M/S Punjab Small Industries and Exports Corporation Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, Circle 2 (1), Chandigarh

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

ITA 652/CHANDI/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh01 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI A.D.JAIN (Vice President), SHRI KRINWANT SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vineet Krishan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr.DR

A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2015-16 against the order dated 25.08.2022 passed by the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi [ in short ‘the ld. CIT(A) ]. 2. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has filed an Application dated 13.06.2024 seeking permission to withdraw

DCIT Circle -1 (Exemptions) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Gujarat State Board of School Text Book, Gandhinagar

In the result, appeal preferred by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 51/AHD/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 51/Ahd/2024 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15) Dcit Gujarat State Board Of बनाम/ Circle-1 (Exemptions), School Text Book Vs. Ahmedabad Vidhyayan Sector 10-A, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad, Gujarat 382010 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg4671P (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Dr. Darsi Suman Ratnam, Cit. Dr अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate 25/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 01/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 11.12.2023 For A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For A.Y. 2014-15 On 28.11.2014 Declaring Nil Income As The Entire Income Was Claimed Exempt Under Section

For Respondent: Shri M. K. Patel, Advocate
Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 12A(1)(b)Section 143(1)Section 153(1)Section 154

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 11.12.2023 for A.Y. 2014-15. 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income

Bhardwaj Harshvadan Patel, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3) Now Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

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

ITA 39/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Kamble, Judical Member & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 39/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) िनधा"रण वष" िनधा"रण वष" Bhardwaj Harshvadan Ito बनाम बनाम/ बनाम बनाम Patel Ward – 1(2)(3), Vs. 201, A Block, Jasper Now Ward – 1(2)(1), Homes, Nr. Sears Towers, Vadodara Vadodara, Gujarat, 390015 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Arhpp4034D (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Tej Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. Dr 20/06/2024 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 01/07/2024 O R D E R Per Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 11.08.2023 For The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As Per Registry, There Is A Delay Of 91 Days In Filing Of This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit Explaining That The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Was Received By Him On 18.11.2023 And

For Respondent: Shri Urjit Shah, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’) dated 11.08.2023 for the Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. As per Registry, there is a delay of 91 days in filing

Premila Mukeshbhai Shah, 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 1049/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 16Th October, 2023 Passed By 2

For Appellant: Shri Parin S. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Shri N.J. Vyas, Sr. D.R
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 68Section 69A

I.T.A No. 1049/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2017-18 Page No. Premila Mukeshbhai Shah vs. ITO the learned Commissioner of Income-Tax(Appeals),National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/2023-24/1057103878(1) , which in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 19-12-2019 passed by the ld. Assessing ... unexplained cash credit. 3. Aggrieved, the assessee filed first appeal with ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A),NFAC issued notices to the assessee, but the assessee did not reply. The CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte in-limine without adjudicating the issues on merits

M/S. Gordhansingh S Rajpurohit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 512/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1456/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal &
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are two appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03.11.2023 for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in the above captioned ... binding precedent, we hold that no TDS is required to be made on the payment towards leased line/data link charges. Therefore, the order of NFAC is hereby reversed. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Cma Cgm Agencies (India) Private Limited, Elphinstone Road West, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1455/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1455 & 1456/Pun/2023 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2015-16 & 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Vidur Munjal &
Section 143(3)Section 194JSection 28Section 40Section 9Section 9(1)(vii)

ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: These are two appeals filed by the assessee directed against the separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 03.11.2023 for the assessment years 2015-16 & 2017-18. 2. Since the identical facts and common issues are involved in the above captioned ... binding precedent, we hold that no TDS is required to be made on the payment towards leased line/data link charges. Therefore, the order of NFAC is hereby reversed. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee stands allowed. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad vs. Sunil Kumar Kumar, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 76/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha, G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.76/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18) Income Tax Officer Vs. Shri Sunil Kumar Kumar Ward 9(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aqppk9880P (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Ch Rajeswara Reddy, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 01/07/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 01/07/2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri CH Rajeswara Reddy, DR
Section 68

आदेश/ORDER Per Manjunatha, G. A.M This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 16/11/2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The Revenue raised the following grounds: Page 1 of 8 ITA No 76 of 2024 Sunil Kumar Kumar 2. Facts

Abdul Jabbar, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 8(2), Hyderabad

ITA 519/HYD/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad01 Jul 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Momina Alam, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, DR

/Pronouncement on: 01/07/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 28/03/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Abdul Jabbar (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Assessee

The Mangode Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd., Palakkad vs. ITO, Palakkad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 700/COCH/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2024

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Sri Suresh Kumar, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal and stay petition by assessee are directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 24.8.2023. The Mangode Service Co-operative Bank Ltd., Palakkad Page 2 of 4 2. The assessee raised grounds

Thekkekunnathu Muhammed Fayas, Ernakulam vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Kochi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 286/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Alwyn Cleetus, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 271BSection 44ASection 80J

Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 22.2.2023, wherein he has confirmed the levy of penalty u/s 271B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Shri. Thattantavita Asharaf, Vadakara vs. ITO Ward 2(2), Kozhikode

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 957/COCH/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin01 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: Sri R. Krishnan, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ilaiyaraja K.S., Sr. D.R
Section 132Section 153C

Date of Pronouncement : 01.07.2024 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2011-12 dated 28.9.2022. The assessee raised following grounds: 1. “The orders of the Assessing Officer and of the First Appellate Authority ... with us is ground No.2 as above. 3. After hearing both the parties, we are of the opinion that same issue was considered by NFAC in the case of Puthiya Purayil Aysha vide order dated 20.2.2024 PAN BKYPA8225Q DIN & order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1061202517(1) wherein observed as under: “6.1.7 The findings

Jila Sahakari Kendriya Bank Maryadit, Khargone vs. The Income Tax Officer National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is dismissed”

ITA 180/IND/2024[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Indore01 Jul 2024AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya Cpc / Nfac Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaatj0529K Assessee By Shri Subhash Jain, Ar Revenue By Shri Ram Kumar Yadav, Cit Dr Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 27.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 01.07.2024

Section 14BSection 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(va)

INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2022-23 Jila Sahakari Kendriya CPC / NFAC Bank Maryadit, बनाम/ 33,Khandwa Road, Vs. Khargone (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) PAN: AAATJ0529K Assessee by Shri Subhash Jain, AR Revenue by Shri Ram Kumar Yadav ... Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 08.02.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of rectification-order dated 07.08.2023 passed by learned CPC [“AO”] u/s 154 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] for Assessment-Year

Kandasamy Prabhakaran, Attur vs. ITO Ward1(6), Salem

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

ITA 527/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman,CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 144Section 68Section 69A

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054555995 (1) dated 24.07.2023. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem for the assessment ... noticed that this appeal is barred by limitation by 160 days. The facts of the case are that the order by CIT(A)-NFAC is dated 24.07.2023. As per Form 36, the assessee has received this order on 24.07.2023 and appeal should have been filed on or before

Dhandapani Rajasekar, Salem vs. DCIT Circle 1(1), Salem

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

ITA 526/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENTAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri T.S. Lakshmi Venkataraman,CAFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)Section 250

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059623963 (1) dated 11.01.2024. The assessment was framed by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Salem ... vide order dated 20.12.2019. 2. The only issue in this appeal of assessee is as regards to the order of CIT(A)-NFAC setting aside the appeal of assessee to the file of AO to re-decide. The ld.AR for the assessee drew our attention to paras