“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

Ravinder Hooda, Rohtak vs. Jt DIT (I and Ci), Chandigarh

ITA 2555/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi23 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Ravinder Hooda, Vs Jt Dit (I & Ci), H.No.308/6, Sir Chhotu Ram Chandigarh. Colony, Gali No.8, Sukhpura Chowk, Rohtak, Haryana-124001. Pan-Aclph6161Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Subodh Jain, Adv. & Shri Samyak Jain, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Parkash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 21.02.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23.02.2024

Section 271F

BHARAT, JM : The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by Ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”) dated 11.07.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. The assessee has raised following revised grounds of appeal:- 1. “That the CIT(A) erred on facts

Pramod Tarade, Raigad vs. CIT ( NFAC ), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 898/PUN/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.898/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner Of A-2, Sai Ameya Chs, Plot V Income Tax,[Nfac]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, S Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. Pan: Aevpt9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Tarun G – Ar Revenue By Shri Sourabh Nayak – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 15/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22/02/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Delhi Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2021-22 Passed On 24.06.2023 Emanating From Order Under Section 154 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.12.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : “1. The Order Of The Cit(A) Nfac, Dt. 24-06-2023 For The A.Y. 2021 -22 Is Contrary To Law & Facts & In The Circumstances Of Pramod Tarade [A]

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 90

सं. / ITA No.898/PUN/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2021-22 Pramod Tarade, The Commissioner of A-2, Sai Ameya CHS, Plot V Income Tax,[NFAC]. No.28, Sector-12, Kharghar, s Panvel, Raigad – 410210. Maharashtra. PAN: AEVPT9870L Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee by Shri Tarun G – AR Revenue by Shri Sourabh ... ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2021-22 passed on 24.06.2023 emanating from order under section 154 of the Income

Jayendra Gopalrao Sardesai, Kolhapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Kolhapur

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

ITA 1107/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: Adjournment application rejectedFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 144

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22-08-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee filed adjournment application dated 20-02-2024 stating that he is a senior citizen suffering from kidney disease ... assessee at Rs.1,92,48,588/- as against the returned of income of Rs.3,94,050/-. The assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi, but however, no response from the assessee to the multiple opportunities granted by the CIT(A) which is evident from para 6.4 of the impugned

Damayanti Narottam Mhatre, Raigarh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 3 Panvel, New Panvel, Panvel

ITA 1048/PUN/2023[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Pune22 Feb 2024AY 2013-2014

Bench: Hon’Ble Partha Sarathi Choudhury & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1048/Pun/2023 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Damayanti Narottam Mhatre Chinchavali Narangi, Alibag Raigad-402201 Pan : Bropm7951E . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant बिधम / V/S. Income Tax Officer Ward-3, Panvel . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms Suneeta Rao [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Gaurav Singh ‘Ld. DR’]

Section 250Section 253(1)(a)

filed u/s 253(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’] by the assessee challenging the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] DIN & Order ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054836158(1) dt. 03/08/2023 passed u/s 250 of the Act. 2. Briefly stated facts anent to the case are that; 2.1 The appellant

Sunandanadevi Madireddy, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 71/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Sunandanadevi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Madireddy, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad. Hyderabad. Pan : Bdqpm7642J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sri P. Vinod, Advocate Revenue By: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar. Date Of Hearing: 21/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 22/02/2024

For Appellant: Sri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 274Section 69A

appeal of the assessee for A.Y. 2017-18 arises from the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dt.15.12.2023 invoking proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, “the Act”). ITA No.71 /Hyd/2024 2. The grounds raised ... Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer, assessee filed an appeal, which was later migrated to the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee. 5. Before me, the ld. AR submitted that the assessee, who is a retired teacher, aged about 82 years and pensioner

Narmada Venkiteela, Tirupati vs. ITO., Ward-1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 43/HYD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA (Vice President), SHRI LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR

ORDER PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: Aggrieved by the order dated 21/11/2023 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), in the case of Narmada Venkiteela (“the assessee”) for the assessment year 2017-18, assessee preferred this appeal. 2. Brief facts

Bhaskar Rao Chandolu, Suryapet vs. ITO, Ward-1, Suryapet

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 69/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Laliet Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Sheetal Sarin, A.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

KUMAR, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee, feeling aggrieved by the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi invoking proceedings under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The grounds raised ... Feeling aggrieved with the order of Assessing Officer assessee filed an appeal, which was later migrated to the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, who dismissed the appeal of assessee by observing as under : “5. Ground of Appeal No.3: This ground of appeal is directed against addition of Rs.47,93,500/- made

Raghu Rama Renewable Energy Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 444/HYD/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 444/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2018-19) M/S. Raghu Ram Vs. Income Tax Officer Renewable Energy Ltd, Ward 3(1) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaccr0908F (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raj Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 5.7.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2018-19. 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 Not Condoning The Delay Of 549 Days In Filing Of The Appeal & Thereby Confirming The Addition Of Rs.2,54,32,624/-

For Appellant: Shri P. Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raj Kumar, DR

Section 143(2)Section 36(1)(iii)

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 5.7.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2018-19. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order ... learned CIT (A) NFAC in not condoning the delay of 549 days in filing of the appeal and thereby confirming the addition of Rs.2,54,32,624/- Page 1 of 8 ITA No 444 of 2023 Raghu Ram Renewable Energy Ltd made by the Assessing Officer on account of disallowance

Invest Smart India Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 331/HYD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No. 331/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14) Invest Smart India (P) Ltd Vs. Income Tax Officer Hyderabad Ward 2(1) Pan:Aftpg1095F Hyderabad (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri N. Raja Kumar, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 20/02/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 22/02/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19.04.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2013-14. 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 Penalty Of Rs.30,000/- Levied By The Assessing Officer U/S 271(1)(B) Of The I.T. Act. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Private Limited Company & Did Not File Its Return Of Income Nor

For Appellant: Shri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: : Shri N. Raja Kumar, DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 271(1)(b)Section 274Section 68

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.04.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2013-14. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order ... learned CIT (A) NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.30,000/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the I.T. Act. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a private limited company and did not file its return of income nor Page

Ekadant Ambuja Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 867/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 154

Sonjoy Sarma, JM: The captioned appeals are filed by the assessee directed against two separate orders dated 01.08.2017 & 21.06.2023 respectively by ld. CIT(A), NFAC relating to A.Y. 2010-11. 2. There is a delay of 2150 days in filing the Appeal No. 866/Kol/2023 on the part of assessee ... file any second appeal against the impugned order passed by ld. CIT(A) on 01.08.2017. The assessee has surprised to receive order from NFAC, Delhi Appeal No. CIT(A), AY: 2010-11 Ekadant Ambuja Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd. Kolkata-2/11297/2016-17 (Manual Appeal Register Number 411) dated 21.06.2023 dismissing

Ekadant Ambuja Infrastructure Development Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 866/KOL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 154

I.T.O, Ward-6(1).Kolkata, Kolkata vs. Digvijay Vinimay (P) Ltd., Kolkata

ITA 700/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Rajpal Yadav & Dr. Manish Borad

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 253Section 68

directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi I.T.A. No.: 700/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Digvijay Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. [in short ld. 'CIT(A)'] dated 23.03.2023 which is arising

Pramod Kumar Agarwal, Howrah vs. Assessment Unit, Itd, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1418/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Rajesh Kumari.T.A. No. 1418/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Pramod Kumar Agarwal,............................Appellant 212, Flat-602, Girish Ghosh Road, Block Chowrah, Belur Bazar, Howrah-711202 [Pan: Achpa9101D] -Vs.- Assessment Unit,...................................Respondent Income Tax Department, Govt. Of India, Ministry Of Finance Appearances By: Shri J.M. Thard, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Anup Biswas, Addl. Cit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 22, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 22Nd, 2024 O R D E R

Section 50CSection 50C(2)

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 26.10.2023 passed for A.Y. 2020-21. 1 Pramod Kumar Agarwal 2. Though the assessee has taken seven grounds of appeal, but his grievances revolve ... Kumar Agarwal (2) Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department, Govt. of India, Ministry of Finance (3) Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi; (4) CIT- , Kolkata (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Vicky Fincom Private Limited., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-5(2), Kolkata.

In the result, ITA No. 1362/KOL/2023 is allowed

ITA 1362/KOL/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250

ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 16.10.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year ... taken the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that on the facts of the case the order passed by the Ld. C.I.T.(A)- NFAC is completely arbitrary, unjustified and illegal. I.T.A. No.: 1362/KOL/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Vicky Fincon Private Limited. 2. For that on the facts of the case

Kamakshi Jute Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. Dcic, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result, ITA No. 1073/KOL/2023 is dismissed

ITA 1073/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Feb 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Sri Rajesh Kumar & Sri Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

ORDER Per Anikesh Banerjee, Judicial Member: The instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [in brevity ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 07.08.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in brevity the ‘Act’) for assessment year ... DCIT when the same was unlawful and arbitrary as the issue involved was debatable on facts and law. 2. That the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC erred in facts and on law in confirming the addition of Rs. 40,91,341/- made by the CPC, Bangalore invoking the provisions of section

The Pr CIT Circle 5 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S M.P.Warehousing & Logistic Corporation, Bhopal

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

ITA 167/IND/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniacit, Circle 5(1) M/S Mp Warehousing & Bhopal Logistics Corporation Office Complex, Block-1 Vs. Gautam Nagar Bhopal (Appellant / Revenue) (Respondent/ Assessee) Pan: Aadcm7742B Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr-Dr Assessee By Shri Shri S.S. Deshpande Ar Date Of Hearing 12.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 35A

This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 31.01.2023 of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) for A.Y. 2013-14. The revenue has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On facts & in the circumstances of the case, the order

Akhilesh Shukla, Bhopal vs. The ITO 1(1), Bhopal

Appeal is allowed

ITA 160/IND/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2011-12 Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Income-Tax Officer, 18/2, Rizwan Bagh, 1(1), बनाम/ Vip Road, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Afops5580E Assessee By Shri Ashish Goyal, Ca & Shri N.D. Patwa, Adv. Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 69

Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 29.03.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 28.02.2014 passed by learned ITO, 1(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income ... meaningful opportunity has not been allowed to the appellant to put up his defense on the issues raised by the Hon'ble CIT-Appeals, NFAC, Delhi in Appellate Order dated 28.02.2014. Page 1 of 7 Shri Akhilesh Shukla, Bhopal vs. ITO, 1(1), Bhopal. ITA No.160/Ind/2023

Ramkunwar Patidar, Bhopal vs. The ITO 2 (4), Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed

ITA 208/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore22 Feb 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Ramkunwar Patidar, Income-Tax Officer, Village Salliya, 2(4), बनाम/ Post Bawadia Kalan, Bhopal Vs. Bhopal (Appellant/Assessee) (Respondent/Revenue) Pan: Blxpp4909C Assessee By Shri S.S.Solanki, Ca & Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 22.02.2024

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 54F

Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 28.06.2022 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 29.11.2016 passed by learned ITO- 2(4), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 147 read with section 143(3) of Income

Arumugam Hema, Puducherry vs. ITO Ward 1 Puducherry, Pondicherry

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

ITA 1597/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 133(6)Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 274Section 69A

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, बी "यायपीठ,चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी महावीर

Amarnath Dhakshnamoorthy, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 2, Puducherry

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1596/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri. S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, IRS, JCIT

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69A

assessee in gross violation of principles of nature justice. Ld. Counsel for the assessee drew my attention to ground No.2 & 3:- ‘’2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice should ... reckoned as nullity in law. 3. The NFAC, Delhi failed to appreciate that the provisions of Section 250(6) of the Act were not followed in passing the impugned order and hence ought to have appreciated that ex-parte order under consideration was passed out of time, invalid, passed without