“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

Motabhai Alibhai and Sons, Viramgam, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assesse is allowed for statistical purposes, as we set aside the orders of the AO as well as ld

ITA 808/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royassessment Year: 2017-18 Motabhai Alibhai & Sons, Ito, 3(1)(1), Ahmedabad, Lokhand Bazar, Viramgam, V. Ahmedabad, Gujarat Ahmedabad-382150, Gujarat Pan:Aaefm1116D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, Ar & Sh. Samit L Jain & Sh. Saiyam, Ars Revenue By: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25.01.2024 (Signed By The Jm On 20.03.2024)

For Appellant: Sh. Prakash D. Shah, AR & Sh. Samit L Jain, &For Respondent: Sh. Chetram Meena, Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 142(1)(i)Section 144Section 144(1)(b)Section 148Section 69A

learned AO should be directed to delete the said addition while computing the total income. 3. Without prejudice to above grounds, further the NFAC erred in law and fact by treating the said amount of addition under section 69A of the Act, for computing tax under section 115BBE

Gujarat Safety Council, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward Exemption, Vadodara

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

ITA 686/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ramit Kochar & Ms. Madhumita Royआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 686/Ahd/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Gujarat Safety Council Income Tax Officer, बनाम/ 4Th Floor, Midway Height, Ward-Exemption, Vs. Kirti Mandir, Kalaghoda, Vadodara Station Road, Vadodara 390001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaatg0943L (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Shri Parin S Shah, Ar अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sudhendu Das, Cit. Dr 25/01/2024 Date Of Hearing 25 /01/2024 (Signed By The Jm Date Of Pronouncement On 20/03/2024 O R D E R Per Ms. Madhumita Roy - Jm: The Instant Appeal Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.08.2023 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Arising Out Of The Order Dated 30.12.2015 Passed By The Ito, Exemptions Ward, Vadodara, Under Section 143(3) Of The Act For Assessment Year 2013-14. The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal As The

For Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT. DR

Section 143(3)Section 249(3)

instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.08.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order dated 30.12.2015 passed by the ITO, Exemptions Ward, Vadodara, under Section 143(3) of the Act for Assessment Year

Namde vs. Inh Mahendrasinh Vaghela, Ahmedabadvs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 635/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Demonetization Period & Rs.10,67,000/- During Demonetization Period.

Section 115BSection 139Section 144Section 69A

assessee as against the exparte appellate order dated 29-07-2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred as the Act] relating to the assessment ... Page No 3 Nardevsinh Mahendrasinh Vaghela vs. ITO 3. Aggrieved against the assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. The Ld. CIT(A) given three opportunities on 23.02.2021, 14.03.2022 and 06.07.2023. Since the assessee has neither participated nor filed any submissions, the appeal

Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-6(1)(1), Ahmedabad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1125/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mrs. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Vs. Rajesh Hariram Mohta, Income-Tax Officer, 45, Jay Nagar Society, Ward-6(1)(1), B/H. Sardar Patel Hospital, Ahmedabad Rambaug, Maninagar, Ahmedabad-380008 Pan : Abopm 4792 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Dhinal Shah & Shri Bhadresh Gandhakwala, Ars Revenue By : Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 20/03/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Annapurna Guptapresent Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against Order Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As "Cit(A)" For Short] Dated 03.11.2023 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As "The Act" For Short], For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Ground Raised By The Assessee Is As Under:- “The Learned Cit(A) Has Erred In Confirming The Addition Of Rs.29,55,000/- Being Cash Deposited In The Bank Account Under Section 69A Inasmuch As The Cash Deposited Is Out Of Cash On Hand [Which Is Out Of Cash Sales & Cash Withdrawn] From The Business & That The Entire Amount Is From Explained Sources.” Rajesh Hariram Mohta Vs. Ito Ay : 2017-18 2

For Appellant: Shri Dhinal Shah &For Respondent: Shri Urjit B. Shah, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Present appeal has been filed by the assessee against order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "CIT(A)" for short] dated 03.11.2023 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Vijaybhai Laxmichand Demla L/H of Late Shri Laxmichand Pahlumal Demla, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(1), Bhavnagar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 1109/AHD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

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

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 159Section 271FSection 272A(1)(d)Section 69Section 69A

deceased assessee as against the appellate order dated 31-10-2023 passed by Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals], National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi arising out of the assessment order passed under section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [herein after referred as the Act] relating to the assessment

The DCIT Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad vs. West Side Cars Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is hereby dismissed

ITA 1398/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad20 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Tr Senthil Kumarआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 1398/Ahd/2019 धििाधरणवरध/Asstt. Year: 2015-2016 The D.C.I.T, West Side Cars Pvt.Ltd., Circle-4(1)(1), Vs. A/1-4, Solitaire Corporate Park, Ahmedabad. Nr. Divya Bhaskar, Makarba, S.G Highway, Ahmedabad.

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani,Sr.AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. DR

Section 68

आयकरअपीलीयअधिकरण, अहमदाबादनयायपीी IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ C’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER And SHRI TR

Javed Abdul Gafur Naik, Kudal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-Kudal, Kudal

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

ITA 56/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Kumar KaleFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatiya

Section 115BSection 131Section 139Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 01-12-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2 ITA No.56/PUN/2024, A.Y. 2017-18 2. The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates ... consideration is as to whether the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi justified in confirming the order of AO ex-parte of the assessee. 3. We note that the assessee is an individual and no return of income filed within the prescribed time provided u/s. 139 of the Act. The AO found

Shrikrupa Nagari Sahakari Pathsanstha Maryadit, Alibag vs. Income Tax Ward 3 Panvel, Panvel

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 292/PUN/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Ronak JainFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80P(2)(d)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1059217550(1), dated 29.12.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard

Sangli Division Telecom Workers Coop Credit Society Ltd. Sangli, Sangli vs. ITO, Ward-1, Sangli

ITA 276/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Pronouncement : 20.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059546964(1) and 1059548478(1), both dated 10.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income ... Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 2. Coming to the assessee’s identical substantive grounds in its’ twin appeals is that the learned NFAC-CIT(A) had erred in law and on facts in confirming the disallowance of deduction(s) u/sec.80P of Rs.38,49,265/- and Rs.32

Sangali Division Telecom Workers Coop Credit Society Ltd., Sangli vs. ITO, Ward 1, Sangli

ITA 275/PUN/2024[AY.2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Amol KulkarniFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

Shahupuri Vyapari Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Ltd Kolhapur, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Kolhapur

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 216/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2018-19, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1060084598(1), dated 24.01.2024, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard

Shree Parashar Vividh Kary Kari Sahakari Vikas Sanstha Maryadit, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Ichalkaranji, Ichalkaranji

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 213/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 263Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055146765(1), dated 16.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard both

Firozali Taherali Chudiwala, Fatima Nagar, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer 14(1), Pune

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

ITA 937/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Virat DoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 10(38)Section 115BSection 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 05-07-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised two grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether ... passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144/144B of the Act. Having aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi. We note that the NFAC, Delhi issued two notices, but no response ever filed by the assessee. Thus, the NFAC, Delhi proceeded to confirm the order

Bharat Dewakinandan Agarwal, Pune vs. ACIT, Circle-13, Pune.

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

ITA 884/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri V.L. JainFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 23(1)Section 23(1)(a)Section 24

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27-07-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee challenging the action of CIT(A) in confirming the addition of Rs.45 ... Aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before 3 ITA No.884/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2016-17 the NFAC, Delhi, the contentions of which are reproduced in pages 4 to 6 of the impugned order. It is specifically argued that the expression “the sum for which the property might

Mangal Babasaheb Bandal, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(5), Pune

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

ITA 847/PUN/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Saurabh J. PatilFor Respondent: Shri Kalpesh Rupavatiya

Section 148Section 250Section 50C

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-06-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2011-12. 2 ITA No.847/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2011-12 2. The sole ground raised by the assessee challenging the action

Manohar Machhindra Thakur, Raigad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Panvel

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

ITA 1331/PUN/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri G.D. Padmahshalimanohar Machhindra Thakur, Vs Ito, Ward-2, Panvel. Dhutum Uran, Raigad-400702 Maharashtra. Pan: Ajjpt 7526 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sharad Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 20/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 20/03/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.10.2023 For A.Y.2019-20 As Per The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. The Ld.Ao Erred In Taxing & Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Confirming The Amount Of Interest Received Of Rs. 5,17,55,606/- U/Sec. 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act & Thereby Erred In Taxing Rs. 2,58,77,803/- (After Giving 50% Deduction U/Sec. 57(Iv)). 2. Without Prejudice To Above, The Ld.Ao Be Directed To Consider Only My Share I.E. 1/5Th Only As Interest U/Sec. 28 & That Much Only Be Taxed After Giving 50% Deduction. 3. The Appellant Craves Its Right To Add To Or Alter The Grounds Of Appeal At Any Time Before Or During The Course Of Hearing Of The Case.”

For Appellant: Shri Sharad Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade, Addl.CIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 28Section 57

pronouncement : 20/03/2024 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 31.10.2023 for A.Y.2019-20 as per the following grounds of appeal:- “1. The ld.AO erred in taxing and ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming ... u/sec. 57(iv) of the Act. 3. Being aggrieved by the order of AO, the assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC, after considering the detailed submissions made by the assessee as well as assessment order, has held at pra 5.5. of its order, as follows:- 2 Manohar Machhindra

Baner Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Baner vs. CIT(A), Delhi

Appeal is allowed in above terms

ITA 1322/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Deepak S. SasarFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2020-21, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1056844603(1), dated 06.10.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”). Heard

Arav Telecom, Pimpri, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-8(5), Akurdi

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

ITA 1055/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune20 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Shri Divyesh TripathiFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07-08-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether ... preferred an appeal before the First Appellate Authority. 3 ITA No.1055/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2017-18 5. As it is noted from the impugned order, the NFAC, Delhi issued three notices, but no compliance made by the assessee. For not having documentary evidences supporting the grounds raised in Form

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 86/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.82 & 86/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2013-14 & 2016-17) Candid Industries Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Hyderabad Circle 1(1) Pan:Aaace4493Q Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 19/03/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 20/03/2024

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A

Laliet Kumar, J.M These three appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 15/09/2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi relating to A.Ys. 2013-14 & 2016-17 respectively. Since common issues are involved in these two appeals, for the sake of convenience, these were heard ... difficulty in arranging documents & due to technical glitches faced in submitting response assessee was unable to provide its response to notices issued by NFAC. Subsequently the A.O without having any bonafde belief that the assessees income has escaped assessment and without providing proper opportunity of being heard and without considering

Candid Industries Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for the A

ITA 82/HYD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68Section 69A