“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

Narendra Kantilal Banthia, Raigad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Panvel

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

ITA 1319/PUN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

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

For Appellant: None

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 55(2)(b)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of the CIT(A) in National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 25.05.2023 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. At the outset, we find that the ld.CIT(A) while passing the ex-parte order

Bipin Anandrao Thorat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Pune

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

ITA 1318/PUN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P. BoraFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 142(1)Section 250Section 69A

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the assessee against the order dated 06-10-2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2012-13. 2. The assessee raised five grounds of appeal amongst which the only issue emanates for our consideration is as to whether ... NFAC, Delhi justified in confirming the order of AO in making addition on account of cash receipts ex-parte of the assessee. 2 ITA No.1318/PUN/2023, A.Y. 2012-13 3. At the outset, we note that the case of the assessee was reopened on the basis of information received from DDIT

Loknete Sunderrraoji Solanke Ssk Ltd., Beed vs. ACIT Circle, Jalna

In the result, Ground Number 1 and 2 of the Assessee are allowed for Statistical purpose

ITA 1275/PUN/2023[AY 2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2024

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1275/Pun/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2010-11 Loknete Sunderraoji Solanke The Acit, Ssk Ltd., V Circle Jalna. A/P.Sundarnagar, S Telgaon, Tal.Dharur, Dist.Beed. Pan: Aaabm0171G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent /Revenue Assessee By Shri Hanmant D Dhavle – Ar Revenue By Shri Keyur Patel – Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 12/01/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 31/01/2024 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(Appeals)[Nfac], Delhi Dated 16.11.2023 Emanating From The Assessment Order Under Section 143(3) R.W.S 254 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 29.09.2021. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under : Loknete Sunderraoji Solanke Ssk Ltd. [A]

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], Delhi dated 16.11.2023 emanating from the assessment order under section 143(3) r.w.s 254 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated ... under : Loknete Sunderraoji Solanke SSK Ltd. [A] “1. On the fact and in the circumstance of the case and in law of the learned NFAC - Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Delhi, has erred in disallowing and adding back an amount of Rs.37,95,09,131/- on account of Excess payment

Kodandaram Nadavati, Nellore vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1, Nellore

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

ITA 637/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.637/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 ) Shri Kodandaram Nadavati Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Nellore Circle 1 Pan:Afupn9767N Nellore (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri Mohd.Afzal, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-. This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.01.2023 Of The Learned Cit (A)-Nfac Delhi, Relating To A.Y.2016-17. 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.63,48,500/-To The Total Income Of The Assessee By Not Condoning The Delay Of 138 Days In Filing Of The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Mohd.Afzal, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri Shakeer Ahmed, Sr.AR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.01.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2016-17. 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 addition of Rs.63,48,500/-to the total income of the assessee by not condoning the delay of 138 days in filing of the appeal. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return

Vishnu Kumar Katturi, Adilabad vs. I.T.O Ward-1, Nirmal

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 628/HYD/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.628/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12) Shri Vishnu Kumar Katuri Vs. Income Tax Officer Adilabad Ward (1) Pan:Agbpk5643G Nirmal (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri K.C. Devdas, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Smt. Sheetal Sarin, Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 31/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 Order Per R.K. Panda, Vice-

For Appellant: Shri K.C. Devdas, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Sheetal Sarin, DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 148

ORDER Per R.K. Panda, Vice-President This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.10.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-NFAC Delhi, relating to A.Y.2011-12. 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 addition of Rs.95,10,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on a diseased assessee. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. In this case, information was received that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.95

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 620/HYD/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda, Vice- & Shri Laliet Kumarआ.अपी.सं /Ita Nos.618 To 620/Hyd/2023 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2015-16 To 2017-18) Andhra Pradesh Industrial Vs. Dy. C. I. T. Development Corporation Circle 1(1) Ltd Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aabca7395Q (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri A.V. Raghuram, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By:: Shri K. Madhusudan, Cit(Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 29/01/2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

/Pronouncement: 31/01/2024 ORDER Per Bench: These 3 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the order dated 6.9.2023 of the learned CIT (A)-, NFAC Delhi relating to A.Ys. 2015-16 to 2017-18 respectively. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, therefore, for the sake of convenience ... beyond the control of the assessee company. 4. The learned AR drew our attention to the order passed by the learned CIT (A) NFAC whereby the contention of the learned AR is that the assessee had made a request for admitting additional evidences filed by the assessee in the form

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 619/HYD/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

Andhra Pradesh Industrial Development Corporation Limited, Hyderabad vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 618/HYD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri A.V. Raghuram, AdvocateFor Respondent: : Shri K. Madhusudan, CIT(DR)

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 144Section 170

Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad, Ramachandrapuram vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kakinada

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

ITA 280/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.280/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Vattikuti Veera Venkata Prasad Vs. Income Tax Officer Shop-03, Ramachandra Puram Ward-1 Ramachandrapuram Mandal Kakinada East Godavari [Pan : Akqpv2779M] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Yashwanth (staff of ShriFor Respondent: Dr.Aparna Villuri, DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Delay : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1054293993(1) dated 11.07.2023, arising out of order passed u/s 147 r.w.s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 108/VIZ/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam31 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 108/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2017-18) Sobha Devi Dilipkumar, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Vijayawada. Ward-2(1), Pan: Abypd 3389 E Vijayawada. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri Gvn Hari, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri GVN Hari, ARFor Respondent: Dr. Aparna Villuri, Sr. AR

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

DUVVURU RL REDDY, Judicial Member : This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049442170(1), dated 6/2/2023 arising out of the order passed U/s. 143(3) of the Income ... income at Rs. 35,34,640/-. Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 3. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, dismissed the appeal of the assessee by holding that the availability of so called cash balance

Jt Commissioner of Income Tax (in Situ) Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. Mcleod Co. Ltd, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 513/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)- NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 23.09.2023 for AY 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, it was pointed ... Circle-4(1), Kolkata 2. Respondent – M/s Mcleod & Co. Ltd., No.3, Mcleod House,Netaji Subhas Road, Dalhousie Square, Kolkata-700001. 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (in-Situ) Circle-4(1), Kolkata vs. Supreme Paper Mills Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 403/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

ORDER / आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the revenue against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 16.03.2023 for AY 2015-16. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee ... Appellant- DCIT, Circle-4(1), Kolkata 2. Respondent – M/s Supreme Paper Mills Ltd., 12, Darga Road, Park Circus, Kolkata-700017. 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Atc India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-13(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 860/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 43B

आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the “Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 30.03.2023 for the AY 2018-19. 2. At the outset, we note that there ... India Electronics Pvt. Ltd., 10/2, Rani Park, Badu Road, Madhyamgram, Kolkata-7000129 2. Respondent – DCIT, Circle-13(1), Kolkata 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Manoj Mishra, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-31(3), Kolkata.

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

ITA 717/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Anikesh Banerjee, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Kallol Mistry, JCIT, Sr. D/R

Section 250

assessee, the e-mail id mentioned in Form No. 35 is mmsonu11@yahoo.co.in. Thus, it is apparent that the notice for hearing by NFAC has been sent on the wrong e-mail address due to which the assessee failed to appear. Under these given facts and circumstances, we direct ... /concerned officer of NFAC to adjudicate the issue raised, on merits as well as legal grounds afresh and for this purpose, notice of hearing should be sent on the correct e-mail as mentioned in Form No. 35. The assessee is also directed to remain compliant. Needless to say that

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 669/KOL/2023[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

AGRAWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these captioned appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide order nos. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1052230906(1) & ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1052231472(1) both dated 20.04.2023 passed against the penalty order for AY 2018- 19 by ITO, NFAC, Delhi ... Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Ltd. AYs 2018-19 & 2019-20 Copy to: 1. The Appellant: 2. The Respondent. 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata Bench, Kolkata //// By Order

Pairagacha Cooperative Credit Society Limited, Pairagacha vs. ITO, Hooghly

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 668/KOL/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal

For Appellant: Shri Alokesh Kundu, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amuldeep Kaur, JCIT

Section 10ASection 139Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(3)Section 272A(1)(d)Section 80ASection 80ISection 80P

Subhra Kanti Dutta, Nadia vs. ITO, Ward-41(1), Nadia, Naida

ITA 623/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(2)

assessee for the assessment year 2014-15 is directed against the order dated 29.12.2022 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the orders passed

Avishi Projects LLP, Kolkata vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore.

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

ITA 1249/KOL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri S. Jhajharia, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Vineet Kumar, Addl. CIT, D/R

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 250Section 5

Partnership had filed an appeal before CIT(A) on 27.6.2020 and such appeal so filed later migrated to CIT(A), NFAC vide Notification No 76/2020 dt. 25.9.2020 [F.No.370142/33/2020 -TPL/503296(E)]. 3. That the Learned CIT(A), NFAC had passed an order on 21.3.2022 treating the appeal so filed ... such order u/s 154 subsumed the intimation u/s 143(1) against which the appeal. 4. However, the aforesaid order of Ld. CIT(A), NFAC was not received by the Pi the Income Tax Department by e-mail or otherwise, and on checking the status filed in November 2023, the said

Rising Retails(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1005/KOL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2011-12

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri S. Datta, CIT, DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 197(1)Section 250Section 40a

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/250/2023-24/1054689090(1) dated 28.07.2023 passed against the assessment order by ITO, Ward-4(1), Kolkata u/s.144/147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... assessee are 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) [hereinafter referred to as C.I.T.(A)] erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. Assessing Officer [hereinafter referred to as AO). 2. That under

Shivratri Exim(P)Ltd, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-5(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1004/KOL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Jan 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawalassessment Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Bonnine Debarma, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 143(3)Section 144Section 14A

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/250/2023-24/1054818374(1) dated 02.08.2023 passed against the assessment order u/s.143(3) read with sec. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... January, 2024 (Sanjay Garg) Accountant Member Dated: 31st January, 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