“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

Rayat Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Satara

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

ITA 371/PUN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryrayat Sahakari Sakhar Vs Ito, Ward-1, Satara. Karkhana Ltd., At Post Shewalewadi, Mhaso, Tal. Karad, Dist. Satara (Mh) Pan: Aabar 0241 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle,Ca Revenue By : Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 27/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 27/02/2024 Order Per Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi, Dated 31.01.2023 For A.Y.2013-14 As Per The Grounds Of Appeal On Record.

For Appellant: Shri Hanmant Dattatry Dhavle,CAFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Addl. CIT

pronouncement : 27/02/2024 ORDER Per PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM: This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi, dated 31.01.2023 for A.Y.2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record. 2. At the very outset, ld.AR of the assessee submitted referring to para ... order of NFAC that though there were sufficient opportunities given to the assessee, but assessee could respond to only one notice of hearing which was on 30/01/2023 and subsequently, the order was passed on 31/01/2023 i.e. immediately the next day. Therefore, ld.AR submitted that technically

Arihant Jewellers, Nigdi vs. Income Tax Officer 9(1), Akurdi Income Tax Office

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1082/PUN/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2016-17, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055025890(1), dated 10.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... ITA.No.1082/PUN./2023 3. I have heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. It is an undisputed fact that the NFAC has passed it’s ex-parte order confirming the impugned addition without adjudicating the issue(s) on merits thereby not complying with sec.250

Arjun Mahadev Parab, Aros vs. ITO Ward Kudal, Kudal

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes in above terms

ITA 1080/PUN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav K Singh

Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

SATBEER SINGH GODARA, J.M. : This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2017-18, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1055371002(1), dated 23.08.2023, involving proceedings u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ... that both the learned al have passed ex-parte order and confirmed the impugned addition without adjudicating the issue(s) on merits. Thus, the NFAC thereby not complying with sec.250(6) of the Act requiring it to give points for determination followed by a detailed adjudication thereof. Faced with

K Ramachandra Reddy, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-12(3), Hyderabad

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

ITA 75/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri L.B. Reddy, ARFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, DR

/Pronouncement on: 27/02/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 05/12/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Kotha Ramchandra Reddy (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal

Office Space Associates, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 35/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Chary

For Appellant: Shri Md. Afzal, ARFor Respondent: Shri M. Naveen Kumar, DR

/Pronouncement on: 27/02/2024 आदेश / ORDER Aggrieved by the order dated 22/11/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Office Space Associates (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal

Nagubabu Kuchibhotla, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-12(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 28/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.28/Hyd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Shri Nagubabu Vs. Income Tax Officer Kuchibhotla Ward-12(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Ahlpk3559L (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Adv. P Prabhakara Murthy राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.02.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2020-21. 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 Upholding The Disallowance Of Rs.4,40,939/- Being Foreign Tax Credit Claimed By The Assessee By Way Of Tax Relief U/S 90 Of The I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 Of 7

For Appellant: Adv. P Prabhakara MurthyFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 90

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.02.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi, relating to A.Y.2020-21. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order ... learned CIT(A)NFAC in upholding the disallowance of Rs.4,40,939/- being Foreign Tax Credit claimed by the assessee by way of tax relief u/s 90 of the I.T. Act, 1961. Page 1 of 7 ITA No 28 of 2024 Nagubabu Kuchibhotla 6. Facts of the case, in brief

Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 657/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.656 & 657/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Hemu Chandhar Vs. Income Tax Officer Chelupuru, Khammam Ward-1 Pan:Afmpc2764A Warangal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Vinod, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Kumar Aditya, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 05/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President ITA No.656/Hyd/2023 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.10.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2011-12. ITA No.657/Hyd/2023 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.11.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating ... relate to the Page 1 of 6 ITA 656 and 657 of 2023 Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru ex-parte order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.49,17,240/- made by the Assessing Officer. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee

Hemu Chandhar Chelupuru, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Warangal

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 656/HYD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Kumar Aditya, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

Sarwar Ahuja, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 493/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon'Ble Justice (Retd.) C.V. Bhadang & Shri R.K. Panda, Vice-आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.493/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Sarwar Ahuja Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward-6(1) Pan:Ahkpa9724E Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: N O N E राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 15/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 27/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 2/8/2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac, Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On 21/11/2023. However, Due To Non-Appearance By Anyone On The Date Of Hearing, The Case Was Adjourned To 15.2.2024 & Notice Was Issued Through Rpad Which Was Duly Served On The Assessee & The Acknowledgment Placed On Record. However, On 15.2.2024 When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called There Was Neither Anyone Present For The Assessee Nor Any Application

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, DR

Section 143(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 2/8/2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC, Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19. 2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 21/11/2023. However, due to non-appearance by anyone on the date of hearing ... record and after hearing the learned DR. 3. The only effective ground raised by the assessee reads as under: “1. That learned CIT (A) NFAC has erred by confirming the addition u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) r.w.s. 50C of the I.T. Act, 1961 amounting to Rs.12,85,500/- without considering

Income Tax Officer, Corporate Ward 2(3), Chennai vs. Ibhar Technologies Private Limited, Anna Nagar

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1582/CHNY/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1582/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2014-15 Income Tax Officer, Ibhar Technologies Private Corporate Ward 2(3), V. Limited, R60, 14Th Street, 4Th Main Road, Chennai. Anna Nagar, Tamil Nadu – 600 040. [Pan: Aabci-1883-R] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit : Shri. T. V. Muthu Abirami, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 147Section 44A

This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 26.09.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2014-15. 2. The revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. The order

Ramasamy Kandasamy, Salem vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(6), Salem

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

ITA 1578/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1578/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ramasamy Kandasamy, The Income Tax Officer, Proprietor Traffic Fashions, V. Ward -1(6), 337, Ii Cross, Salem. Thirupathy Nagar, Alagapuram, Periyapudur, Tamil Nadu – 636 016. [Pan: Aoupk-1878-G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. S. R. Srikrishna, Ca : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. S. R. Srikrishna, CA

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.11.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, as per information available with

Vinayagam Chettiar Sekar, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward-19(3), Chennai

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

ITA 1425/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1425/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri. Vinayagam Chettiar The Income Tax Officer, Sekar, V. Non Corporate Ward -19(3), No. 87A, Wanaparthy Block, Market Lane, No. 121, M G Road, Alandur, Nungambakkam, Chennai – 600 016. Chennai – 600 034. [Pan: Aajps-6500-Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate

Section 69

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 27.07.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 72 days

Hansika Jain, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(4), Jaipur

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

ITA 766/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri H.M. Singhvi (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 10(38)Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68Section 69C

directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 17.10.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[herein after referred to as “CIT(A)/(NFAC)”] for the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That the Learned CIT(A) went wrong

Varsha Ratan Bhalwankar, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 13(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3645/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 68

Pronouncement 27.02.2024 ORDER Per Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 05.09.2023 for the AY 2017-18. The assessee raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts

Smt. Pinki Chetan Shah, Mumbai vs. Addl/Jt/Dy/ACIT, ITO-20(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3629/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey, Jm & Ms Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Shri Govind Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Yogendra T. Wakare, DR

Section 2Section 56(2)(x)

Padmavathy S, AM: This appeal is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) [for short 'the CIT(A)] dated 16.08.2023 for the AY 2018-19. 2. The only issue contended in this appeal is the addition to the extent

M/S. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Successor M/S. P I Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 6(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3585/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Industries Ltd. 2011-12; and order dated 09-08-2023 for the A.Y. 2017-18, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi for quantum of assessment passed u/s. 143(3). 2. We will first take up the appeal for assessment year 2010-11 wherein assessee has raised the following

M/S. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Successor M/S. P I Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3584/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Section 143(3)

M/S. Isagro (Asia) Agrochemicals Pvt. Ltd. Successor M/. P I Industries Ltd., Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for A

ITA 3583/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI AMIT SHUKLA (Judicial Member), SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)

Ranjan Suresh Ghia, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(3) Mumbai, Mumbai

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

ITA 3575/MUM/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Ms. Sajal SaravariyaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 234BSection 249(2)Section 250Section 69

appeal, the assessee has raised the following grounds:– “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that the appeal is inadmissible and dismissed the same. Ranjan Suresh Ghia ITA no.3575/Mum./2023 2. On the facts and circumstances ... case and in law, the CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding the appeal inadmissible on incorrect appreciation of facts. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in treating the date of Order as date of service of the Order

N P Textile Agency, Mulund, Mumbai vs. DCIT 41(2)(1), Bkc

ITA 3343/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year: 2018-19 M/S. N.P. Textile Agency, National Assessment D/7-8, Indraprasth Society, Centre, Sarvodaya Nagar, New Delhi/ Dy. Vs. Mulund (West), Commissioner Of Income Mumbai – 400 080 Tax, Pan: Aaifn5003C Circle 41(2)(1), Mumbai (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.R. Revenue By : Shri Ashok Kumar Abastha, D.R.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Athavale, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Abastha, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 40

assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 27.07.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2018-19 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “1. The learned