“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

Swatantravir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Nashik

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

ITA 882/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Pronouncement : 19.03.2024 ORDER PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : These assessee’s twin appeals arise against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s as many Din and Order Nos.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049745666(1) and 1049745474(1), both dated 14.02.2023, involving proceedings u/s.143(3) r.w.s.147 and sec.144 of the Income

Swatantravir Savarkar Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Nashik

Accordingly. The assessee’s “lead” appeal ITA.No.881/PUN./2023 is dismissed in above terms

ITA 881/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. Neha Deshpande

Section 124(3)(a)Section 127Section 143(3)Section 144Section 148Section 80A(5)Section 80P

Income Tax Officer, Aayakar Bhawantarabai Park Kolhapur vs. Sadanand Shankarrao Korgaonkar, Laxmipuri Kolhapur

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

ITA 1274/PUN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteito, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur. Vs Sadanand Shankarrao Korgaonkar, 1356 C Ward, Laxmipuri, Kolhapur (Mh) Pan : Aawpk 6188 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte, Ca Revenue By : Shri Keyur Patel, Dr Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 19/03/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Revenue Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 13.09.2023 For A.Y.2018-19 As Per The Following Revised Grounds Of Appeal:- “I. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Deleting The Addition Of Rs. 8,17,55,763/- Of Unexplained Cash Deposits. Ii. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Following The Procedure Laid Down Under Rule 46A As He Has Accepted The Additional Evidences Without Giving The Opportunity To The Ao. Iii. The Cit(A) Has Erred In Not Holding That The Cash Deposits In The Account Of Firm May Be Held To Be Partner’S Cash. Firm & Its Partners Are Integral Part. Iv. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Ground/Grounds, Which May Be Necessary.”

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. Shingte, CAFor Respondent: Shri Keyur Patel, DR

pronouncement : 19/03/2024 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 13.09.2023 for A.Y.2018-19 as per the following revised grounds of appeal:- “i. The CIT(A) has erred in deleting the addition ... assessee instead of in the name of the firm. 2 Sadanand Shankarrao Korgaonkar That, after perusal of these evidences, at para 6.6 the NFAC has provided relief to the assessee. 4. The basic crux of the facts in this case are that the bank instead of recording

Income-Tax Officer Ward-2, Ahmednagar vs. Mahesh Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Limited, Sangamner Dist. Ahmednagar

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1250/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11-10-2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal appearing hereinafter. The grounds of appeal are as follows

Income Tax Officer, Ward 5, Sangli, Income Tax Department vs. Ashokrao Anna Yashwant Gram Bigar Sheti Sah Patsanstha Ltd., Borgaon, Tal Walwa

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1245/PUN/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Mar 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member), DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.Y. Balawade, Addl. CIT

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

ORDER PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM : This appeal preferred by the Revenue emanates from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10-10-2023 for the Assessment Year 2020-21 as per the grounds of appeal appearing hereinafter. The grounds of appeal are as follows

Ramu Gatati, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward 10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 80/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramu Gatati, Hyderabad. Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward – 10(1), Shop No.38, Amc, Market Yard, Hyderabad. Secunderabad, Telangana – 500009. Pan : Biwpg0784N (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S.K. Gupta, Advocate. Revenue By: Miss. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 06.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Miss. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 11.01.2024 for the AY 2017-18 on the following grounds : 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under ... Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the assessing officer, assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, who dismissed the appeal of assessee on account of non-prosecution and on merits. 5. Feeling aggrieved with the order of ld.CIT(A), assessee is now in appeal before

Celkon Impex Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT., Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 46/HYD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2021-22 Celkon Impex Private Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Limited, Of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Mohad. Afzal, Advocate. Revenue By: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, Cit- Dr Date Of Hearing: 13.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar, J.M.

For Appellant: Shri Mohad. Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Jeevan Lal Lavidiya, CIT-

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 28Section 69C

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2021-22 arises from the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.10.2023 invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”), 2. The grounds raised by the assessee ... hence the additions stand. However, with regard to the addition under the head of Trade Payables, the appellant submits as: Without prejudice, the NFAC erred in making a double addition u/s 68 of the Act to the extent of Rs. 30,17,688/- in respect of unverified Trade Payables

Mohd Ayub Khan, Mahabubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahaboobnagar

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

ITA 158/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri P.V.Subba Raju, DR

/Pronouncement on: 19/03/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 29/01/2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Mohd. Ayub Khan (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal

Mir Murtuza Ali, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-9 (1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 109/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Mir Murtuza Ali, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Aqapa0170F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Ms. K. Haritha, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. K. Haritha, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 68

This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 08.12.2023 for the AY 2018-19 on the following grounds : 2 2. The grounds raised by the assessee reads as under

Sachin Yerrawar, Bhainsa vs. ITO - Ward -1, Nirmal

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

ITA 103/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.103/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2015-16) Shri Sachin Yerrawar Vs. Income Tax Officer Bhainsa, Ward 1 Nirmal District, Nirmal Telangana. Pan: Affpy2732K (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, Ca निर्धारितीती द्वारा /Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri Pradeep Raj Kuna, CAFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 144Section 148Section 154Section 69A

आदेश/ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04/12/2023 of the learned CIT (A)-,NFAC relating to A.Y.2015-16 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned ... NFAC in confirming the disallowance of Rs.77,60,569/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 69A of the I.T. Act. Page 1 of 5 ITA No 103 of 2024 Sachin Yerrawar 3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 1 day. He has moved a condonation

The N.D.D. P and T E.C.C Society Ltd., Nellore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Nellore

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

ITA 611/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.611/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2017-18) The Nddp & Tec Society Vs. Income Tax Officer Ltd, Ward-1 Nellore. Nellore. Pan:Aactt5322J (Appellant) (Respondent) /Assessee By: Shri M. Chandra Mouleswara निर्धारितीती द्वारा Rao, C.A /Revenue By: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar राजस्‍व द्वारा ई की तारीखरीख/Date Of Hearing: 14/03/2024 सुनवाई की तारीखरीख/Pronouncement: 19/03/2024 घोषणा

For Appellant: Shri M. Chandra MouleswaraFor Respondent: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR

Section 139Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69ASection 80P

आदेश/ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.10.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2017-18. Page 1 of 8 ITA 611 of 2023 NDDP and TEC Society Ltd 2. Although a number of grounds have been ... raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.10,25,132/- made u/s 69A and Rs.1,33,80,460/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 80P of the I.T. Act. 3. Facts of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Kondapur vs. Ksk Mahanadi Power Company Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed in limine

ITA 602/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2018-19 The Assistant Commissioner Of Vs. Ksk Mahanadi Power Company Limited, Income Tax, Jubilee Hilss, Circle – 2(1), 8-2-293/82/A/431A, Road Hyderabad. No.22, Jubilee Hills, Telangana (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri S. Venugopal, C.A. Revenue By: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing: 18.03.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.03.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Venugopal, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, Sr. AR

Section 13Section 31Section 7

This appeal is filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.10.2023 for the AY 2018-19 on the following grounds : 2 2. At the outset it is represented by both the sides that

Muklesur Rahaman, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir.-61, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 39/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2015-16 Muklesur Rahaman Sarkar Assistant Commissioner Of C/O Subash Agarwal & Income Tax, Circle 61, Associates, Advocates, Siddha Vs. Kolkata. Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite 213, 2Nd Floor, Kolkata-700069. (Pan: Atpps0434C) (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakeshb Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 56(2)(vii)

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059186385(1) dated 29.12.2023 passed against the penalty order by Assessing Officer, (NFAC), Delhi u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income ... March, 2024. (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Dated: 19th March, 2024 JD, Sr. P.S. Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

M/S. Strenuous Exim Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 896/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 144

fact about passing of such impugned order against it. The assessee getting the information about the fact as and when received a notice from NFAC portal about pending of the appeal against the same 2 AY: 2012-13 M/s. Strenuous Exim Pvt. Ltd. assessment order dated 10.03.2015 which was challenged ... assessee before the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication. In the intervening time, NFAC has passed an order dated 19.06.2023 by dismissing the appeal of the assessee stating that appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order dated 10.03.2015 was already disposed off by the erstwhile ld. CIT(A), Kolkata

Vasudev Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-5(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 723/KOL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Amit Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, DR

Section 144Section 14ASection 250(6)Section 263

GIRISH AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1046325056(1) dated 15.10.2022 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata u/s. 144/263/143(3) of the Income ... reproduced as under: “1. That, on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. C.I.T. (A), NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTER (NFAC), DELHI [hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as AO]. 2 Vasudev Merchants

Aranyak Developers Pravate Ltd., Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur

ITA 662/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. Nos. 661 & 662/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Aranyak Developers Private Limited,….…….Appellant B-80, Sector-2A, Bipin Chandra Pal Sarani, Bidhan Nagar, Durgapur, Burdwan-713212, West Bengal [Pan:Aajca5219K] -Vs.- Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax,….Respondent Circle-1, Durgapur, Aayakar Bhawan, City Centre, Durgapur-713216, West Bengal Appearances By: Shri Manoj Kataruka, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Ankur Goyal, Jcit, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: January 10, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: March 19Th, 2024 O R D E R

Section 147Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

against the orders of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre Assessment Years: 2012-2013 & 2013-2014 Aranyak Developers Private Limited (NFAC), Delhi both dated 2nd May, 2023 for assessment years 2012-13 & 2013-14. Since facts and issues involved in both the appeals are identical, these

Aranyak Developers Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-1, Durgapur.

ITA 661/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Section 147Section 201(1)Section 40Section 40A(3)

Koomber Properties & Leasing Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cpa. Bangalore., Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed in the above terms

ITA 1250/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumar

Section 143Section 143(1)Section 250

Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore. Thereafter, in compliance to notice under section 250 of the Act, dated 01.01.2021, from CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, bearing DIN: ITBA/NFAC/F/APL-1/ 2020-21/1029421754(1), your appellant filed its written submissions with annexures on 11.01.2021. The appeal, however, remained undisposed till then. Your appellant

Soubhik Exports Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata / N E-Assessment Centre, Delhi.

ITA 1243/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 68

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to the facts and weight of evidence on record. 2. That the impugned order is against the principles of natural justice ... 1243/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 & 2018-19 Soubhik Exports Limited 3. That the order passed by the Ld. CIT (A), Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi is highly prejudiced and is based on presumption, assumption and surmises. 4. That the Ld. CIT (A), Income Tax Department, NFAC, Delhi erred

Soubhik Exports Limited., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-8(2), Kolkata.

ITA 1242/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Mar 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg, Hon’Ble & Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri P.K. Singh, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Rakesh Kumar Das, CIT, D/R

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 14ASection 250Section 68