← 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

Rajeev Bhasin, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only with consequences to follow as per directions above

ITA 3901/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shobha Bhasin, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Shri Rajeev Bhasin, Ward 2(2), 914, Hamilton Road, Ghaziabad. Kashmere Gate, New Delhi - 110 006. Pan: Aaapb2220R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Shri Manish Upneja, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Passed U/Ss 144/147 & Ita No.3897/Del/2023 271(1)(C), Respectively, Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), Respectively, By The Ito, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals are preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the appeals before it against the orders passed u/ss ... page No.1 of Part- C(A) of the paper book the copy of the additional evidence application under Rule 46A filed before the NFAC is also filed. The ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 3. In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to quash the impugned

Rajeev Bhasin, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only with consequences to follow as per directions above

ITA 3897/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2010-11 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Shobha Bhasin, Vs Ito, L/H Of Late Shri Rajeev Bhasin, Ward 2(2), 914, Hamilton Road, Ghaziabad. Kashmere Gate, New Delhi - 110 006. Pan: Aaapb2220R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Baldev Raj, Ca & Shri Manish Upneja, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: These Appeals Are Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.12.2023 Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) Arising Out Of The Appeals Before It Against The Orders Passed U/Ss 144/147 & Ita No.3897/Del/2023 271(1)(C), Respectively, Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’), Respectively, By The Ito, Ward-2(2), Ghaziabad (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao).

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CA &For Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: These appeals are preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 22.12.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) arising out of the appeals before it against the orders passed u/ss ... page No.1 of Part- C(A) of the paper book the copy of the additional evidence application under Rule 46A filed before the NFAC is also filed. The ld. DR could not dispute the aforesaid facts. 3. In the light of the aforesaid, we are inclined to quash the impugned

ITO, Ward 43(6), New Delhi vs. Gunjan Aggarwal, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3325/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ito, Vs Gunjan Aggarwal, Ward 43(6), 42, Sharda Niketan, New Delhi. Pitampura, New Delhi. – 110 034. Pan: Akxpb3657P

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Goel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Kumar Upadhyaya, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 69A

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Revenue against the order dated 26.09.2023 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-15/10618/2019-20 arising out of the appeal

Ram Kishore Aggarwal, Jangpura Extension vs. ITO - 63(1), Civic Centre

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2718/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Vice- & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

learned Departmental Representative defended upon the order of learned First Appellate Authority. 3. As we appreciate that the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)), it comes up that the learned First Appellate Authority mentions about notice dated 28.01.2021 being issued, followed by notice dated 29.12.2022, issued to the assessee

Dinesh Gupta, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(1) Noida, Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2554/DEL/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Madhav Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234ASection 48Section 50C

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.07.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in law by upholding the action

Anju Kumar, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 61(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2527/DEL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharatdr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Yash BholaFor Respondent: Sh. Kanv Bali, Sr. DR
Section 271(1)(c)

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.08.2023. 2. At the outset, both the parities fairly brought to our notice that the quantum additions in this case have been deleted in assessee

Samsung C and T Corporation India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle 22(2) Delhi, New Delhi

In the result, appeal is allowed

ITA 2184/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2018-19

Section 115JSection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 31.05.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, learned counsel appearing for the assessee submitted that ground nos. 1, 4 and 5, being ... rejected. Thereafter, the assessee filed an appeal before the first appellate authority. 5. While deciding the appeal, the NFAC upheld the addition stating that assessee’s application under section 154 of the Act was rightly rejected as there was no mistake apparent on the face of record, which could have

Milky Investment and Trading Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-16(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3029/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Sh. Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3029/Del/2022 (A.Y 2014-15)

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR US, JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Income Tax Department/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) dated 30/11/2022 for Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. As per Ground No. 2 of the Appeal, the assessee pleaded that the representative

Naresh Kumar Singal, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Dlhi

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

ITA 2848/DEL/2022[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Mr. S. Rifaur Rahman & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 2848/Del/2022 (Assessment Year : 2007-08) Naresh Kumar Singal Vs. Ito C/O. Prateek Mittal & Co., Ward – 2(4) House No.77, Pocket-A-8, New Delhi Kalkaji Extention, New Delhi Pan : Alups 2769 J (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Mittal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anshul, Sr. D.R
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 54Section 68

JUDICIAL MEMBER : The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.11.2022 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – NFAC, Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated

Asha Ram Sharma, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, this appeal is allowed as indicated above for

ITA 2611/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Shri Sudhir Pareek

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 147Section 54B

PAREEK, JM This appeal by Assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre , Delhi [for short hereinafter referred to as the “(NFAC)”] dated 31.08.2022 for Assessment Year 2011-12 on the following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case ... Ld.CIT(A), NFAC has erred in deciding the appeal ex-parte without Page 1 of 6 ITA No.- 2611/Del/2022 Asha Ram Sharma giving fair & meaningful opportunity to the assessee of being heard. Therefore, the action of Ld.CIT(A) is wrong, illegal, misconceived and unjustified therefore it should be quashed

Tansa Trust, Delhi vs. Assistant Commissioner, Income Tax (CPC), Bangalore

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1704/DEL/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Ble & Shri Anubhav Sharmaassessment Year: 2014-15 Tansa Trust, Vs Acit (Cpc), C/O Bajaj Auto Limited, Post Bag No.2, Electronic City B-60/61, Naraina Industrial Area, Post Office, Phase Ii, Bangalore. New Delhi – 110 028. Pragun Finance Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aaatt0504A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Vasanti Patel, Ca & Shri M.A. Gohel, Ca Revenue By : Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 27.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30.05.2024

For Appellant: Ms Vasanti Patel, CA &For Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR
Section 11Section 11(5)Section 12ASection 13(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 35ASection 80Section 80G

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 23.09.2021 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in Appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-17/10040/2019-20 arising out of the appeal

ACIT (Exemptions), Circle-2, Chandigarh vs. Infrastructure Development Fund, Chandigarh

In the result, the Departmental appeal is dismissed

ITA 336/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 336/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 The Acit (Exemptions), Vs. Infrastructure Development Fund, बनाम Circle-2, Town & Country Planning, Chandigarh Haryana, Ayojna Bhawan, Sector 18 Marg, Chandigarh 160018 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaal10136K अपीलाथ" ./ Appellant ""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Rohit Sharma, CIT DR

appeal in this case has been filed by the Department against the order dated 30.03.2023 of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. The Grounds taken by the Department are reproduced as under:- 1. Whether on the facts and circumstance of the case, the action ... 644/Chd/18 & the additional grounds No.1 & 2 in ITA No.528/Chd/17, are accordingly allowed.” 6. We have considered the findings of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on this issue and written submissions filed by the ld. Counsel of the Assessee. We have also heard ld. DR and gone through the ITAT, Chandigarh

Sh. Raj Kumar, Yamuna Nagar vs. ITO, Ward -3, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, the addition so made is hereby directed to be deleted

ITA 226/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV (Accountant Member), SHRI. PARESH M. JOSHI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vibhor Garg, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(2)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

DCIT Circle -1 (Exemption) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad vs. Naroda Enviro Projct Limited, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 360/AHD/2024[2016 17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 2(15)Section 25

filed by the Revenue as against the appellate order dated 26.12.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143[3] of the Income- tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] relating

Jalpa Savankumar Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-3(3)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 348/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249(4)

This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 30.01.2024 passed by the the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the re- assessment order passed under section 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income- Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ... records. It is seen from the appellate order, there is no whisper of any information having provided the assessee opportunity of hearing by NFAC, before dismissing the appeal. The provision of section 249(4) reads as under: "...No appeal under this Chapter shall be admitted unless at the time

Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Ahmedabad vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 629/AHD/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2020-21 Bhumika Mahesh Parwani, Income Tax Officer Sadhu Vaswani Mansion, Vs Ward 1(3)(1), Mirghawad, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380002 Gujarat Pan: Aljpp2059A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sakar Sharma, Ar Revenue By : Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13/05/2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29/05/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Makarand V. Mahadeokarthis Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) [Hereinafter Referred As “Cit(A)”], Dated 01.08.2023, For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Wherein The Cit(A) Confirmed The Addition Made By The Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Referred As “Ao”) As Per The Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As "The Act".

For Appellant: Shri Sakar Sharma, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Neeju Gupta, Sr.DR
Section 142Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(x)

MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [hereinafter referred as “CIT(A)”], dated 01.08.2023, for the Assessment Year 2020-21, wherein the CIT(A) confirmed the addition made by the Assessing Officer ... Assessee has filed an appeal with following grounds of appeal: Bhumika Mahesh Parwani vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2020-21 2 1. The Ld. NFAC-CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in not adjudicating the validity of assessment made by the Assessing Officer on the issues other than

Takshashila Realties Private Limited (Earstwhile Youngstar Infracon Pvt. Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(1)(2) Now Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 601/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

Revenue and the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

DCIT, Circle 4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. Takshashila Realities Pvt. Ltd. (Erstwhile Youngstar Infracon Private Limited), Ahmedabad

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 597/AHD/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 148Section 80Section 80I

Revenue and the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 08.06.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the re-assessment order passed under section 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Chinmay Impex Private Limited, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1111/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The Tribunal. After Contacting The Present Chartered Accountant, The Chinmay Impex Vs. Ito Asst.Year 2015-16 2 Assessee Company Filed The Appeal With A Delay Of 35 Days & Requested To Condone The Same.

Section 143Section 148Section 151Section 68

MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte appellate order dated 22.09.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143 r.w.s 147 of the Income-Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Mahesh D.Tekchandani, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1028/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 May 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyalिनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Vs. Mahesh Tekchandani, Income-Tax Officer, 67, Shivalik Bungalows, Ward-3(3)(3), Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015 Ahmedabad Pan : Aespt 5350 A अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "" "" यथ" "" "" यथ" यथ"/ (Respondent) यथ" Assessee By : Shri S.N. Divatia, Ar Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr Dr तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 02.05.2024 सुनवाई क" क" तारीख सुनवाई सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 29.05.2024 घोषणा घोषणा घोषणा क" क" तारीख तारीख आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Siddhartha Nautiyal: This Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 20.10.2023, Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1.1 The Order Passed By U/S.250 Passed On 20.10.2023 By Cit(A)-Nfac Delhi Upholding The Addition Of Rs.28,72,000/- Made By A.O. Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 1.2 The Ld. Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The First Payment By Cheque Was Made On 03.02.2014 & The Final Purchase Deed Was Executed In Fy 2018-19. But No Evidence Pointed Out By Ao To Prove That The Alleged Cash Payment Was Made During The Previous Year Relevant To A.Y. 2012-13. 2 Mahesh D. Tekchandani Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Mishra, Sr DR
Section 132Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 153CSection 250

MEMBER: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short] dated 20.10.2023, passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred ... assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1.1 The order passed by U/s.250 passed on 20.10.2023 by CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi upholding the addition of Rs.28,72,000/- made by A.O. is wholly illegal, unlawful and against the principles of natural justice. 1.2 The Ld. CIT(A) has failed