“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

Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1700/AHD/2024[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Safal Engineers and Realties LLP, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1699/AHD/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

Section 143(3)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “B” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD

Mehar Palliative Care Trust, Ahilyanagar vs. CIT(E), Nashik

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.217/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Meher Palliative Care Trust, Vs. Cit (Exemption), Plot No.1, Gat 515/1/1, Nashik Behind Stone Terrace Cond. Post Meherabad Arangaon, Tal Dist. Ahilyanagar – 414001 Maharashtra Pan : Aaetm1969Q Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Prasad BhandariFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 10Section 10(23)(iiiae)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

without prejudice to each other - 1. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the Ld. Assessing Officer has completed the assessment by issuing ... Meher Palliative Care Trust 2. On the facts and in the prevailing circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in confirming the addition made the Ld. Assessing Officer without appreciating the fact that the notice under section 143(2) has been issued

Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Mahila Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 9(3), Pune

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

ITA 114/PUN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.114/Pun/2026 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shree Aishwarya Laxmi Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Mahila Nagari Sahakari Ward-9(3), Pune Patsanstha Maryadit, Plot No.16, Vijaynagar Colony, Vadgaon, Tal. Maval, Dist. Pune 412 106 Maharashtra Pan : Aaaam7430P Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Mahavir JainFor Respondent: Shri Dayanand Jawalikar

Section 147Section 250

bank account of the appellant was seized, it came to know about all the notices issued and the order passed by the Ld. NFAC, Delhi. The appellant immediately informed the tax consultant to take the necessary action. It is in view of the above-mentioned facts that there is delay

Mustafa Jainuddin Amreliwala, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jalgaon

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

ITA 1993/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1993/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mustafa Jainuddin Amreliwala, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/O. M/S. Jainuddin Brothers, Ward-1(1), Jalgaon 169, Bhawani Peth, Jalgaon – 425 001 Maharashtra Pan : Agwpa0152F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawadiaFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 144Section 147Section 250(6)Section 69

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17 is directed against the order dated 26.06.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 06.03.2025 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. We have heard

Kedgaon Gramin Bigarsheti Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Solapur vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Solapur

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

ITA 1983/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1983/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2015-16 Kedgaon Gramin Bigarsheti Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sahkari Patsanstha Maryadit, Ward-1, Pandharpur Kedgaon Karmala, Solapur – 413202 Maharashtra Pan : Aactk1425B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 142(1)Section 147

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2015-16 is directed against the order dated 27.06.2025 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 30.01.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s.144 r.w.s.144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Brief facts are that

Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Sangli vs. ITO Ward-2, Sangali

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

ITA 1851/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1851/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Dastagir Hamid Mujawar, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Nath Galli, Near Mashedee, Ward-2, Sangli Vita At Post Vita, Tal. Khanapur, Sangli-415311 Maharashtra Pan : Awqpm0876L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil S PathakFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(1)Section 144Section 68

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 is directed against the order dated 14.05.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 13.12.2019 passed u/s. 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Registry has pointed out that

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1369/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that 1d.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 11. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest ... were issued right from 2022 through till 2024 and all of them (3 in number) remain un-complied with. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFaC) also in November, 2022 enabled communication window to facilitate filing of submissions by the appellant but to no avail. 3. In view of the above

Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Pune vs. DCIT, Circle 7, Pune

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

ITA 1368/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1368 & 1369/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Babasaheb Bhagawan Atkire, Vs. Dcit, Circle-7, S.No.50/3, Flat No.9, Floor No.1, Pune Kure Plazapune, Opp. Konark Pooram Main Gate, Kondhwa Khurd, Pune 411048, Maharashtra Pan : Afepa8628K Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas Bora and Shri Sampada IngaleFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 143(3)Section 250

case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF) Bombay)/[2017] 297 CTR 614 (Bombay) wherein it was held that ld.CIT(A) NFAC is obliged to dispose of the appeal on merits even in an exparte order. 11. Considering the totality of the case and in the larger interest ... were issued right from 2022 through till 2024 and all of them (3 in number) remain un-complied with. The National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFaC) also in November, 2022 enabled communication window to facilitate filing of submissions by the appellant but to no avail. 3. In view of the above

Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Dhule vs. ITO Ward 1, Dhule

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

ITA 1091/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1091/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2013-14 Imrankhan Ismail Pathan, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Plot No.11, Ward-1, Dhule Mohammadi Nagar, Jaihind Colony, Deopur, Dhule – 424 002 Maharashtra Pan : Anepp8171C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Basavaraj Hiremath

Section 144Section 271(1)(c)

instance of assessee pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 is directed against the order dated 09.02.2024 framed by National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) arising out of Assessment Order dated 03.12.2018 passed u/s. 144 r.w.s.147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’). 2. Registry has pointed out that

DE vs. Medical and Educational Society, Hydearabadvs.ITO, Exemption Ward-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 845/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.845/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-2019 Devs Medical & Educational Society, The Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad – 500 062. Vs. Exemption Ward-1(1), Telangana. Hyderabad – 500 029. Pan Aaaad1678G (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri B Satyanarayana Murthy, Ca For Revenue : Sri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. Ar Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri B Satyanarayana Murthy, CAFor Respondent: Sri Srinath Sadanala, Sr. AR

Section 115Section 115BSection 143(3)

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 19.03.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2 ITA.No.845/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Order ... Income Tax (Appeals) is contrary to the facts of the case and the Provisions of Law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC erred in sustaining the addition of Rs.2,54,81,064/- in respect of the fees received by the Society of Rs.2

Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2037/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G.आ.अपी.सं /Ita No.2037/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2013-2014 Kyori Oremin Limited, Hyderabad. The Dcit, Vs. Pin - 500 081. Circle-2(1), Telangana. Hyderabad. Pan Aadck1617K (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, Ca For Revenue : Ms U Mini Chandran, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.03.2026 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Sri P Murali Mohan Rao, CAFor Respondent: MS U Mini Chandran, CIT-DR

Section 250Section 37(1)Section 40

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 22.09.2025 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2 ITA.No.2037/Hyd./2025 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The order

Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri vs. ITO, Ward-1, Hindupur

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

ITA 1862/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1862/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year: 2018-19) Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Kadiri. Ward-1, Pan: Bibpr4972G Hindupur. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Nvv Gopalal Krishna, Ca Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 09/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Shri Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 22/10/2025 For The Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy, Kadiri (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 22/10/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.” 2018-19. Poreddy Sambasiva Reddy vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following

Veera Reddy Posham, Nalgonda vs. ACIT, Central Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1829/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं / Ita.Nos.1829 & 1830/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

Section 10Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234FSection 250(6)Section 270ASection 80CSection 80C(2)(xvii)

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, हैदराबाद पीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL Hyderabad ‘B’ Bench, Hyderabad BEFORE SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1782/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

filed by the Revenue feeling aggrieved by the different orders passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 01/08/2025 & dated 07/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2017-18 and A.Y. 2018- 19 respectively. Since both the appeals are related

ACIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad vs. Ushodaya Enterprises Private Limited, Hyderabad

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

ITA 1781/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 14A(2)

Dandeboina Ramesh, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-(1), Warangal

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

ITA 1661/HYD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

Section 115Section 139Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 69A

Shri Dandeboina Ramesh (‘the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 25/08/2025 for the Assessment Year (“A.Y.”) 2015-16. ITA No.1661/Hyd/2025 Dandeboina Ramesh vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following

Dugginnigari Subramaniyam Naidu, Tirupati vs. ACIT., Circle - 1(1), Tirupati

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

ITA 1443/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. AO.

Section 133(6)Section 68

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 03.07.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. 2 Dugginnigari Subramaniyam Naidu 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under ... Order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, is not sustainable either on facts or in law, and is liable to be set aside in its entirety. 2. The learned CIT(A), NFAC erred in upholding addition of Rs. 45,55,000 u/s 68 rws 115BBE being cash

Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Rajahmundry vs. ITO., Ward-13(1), Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1263/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia(In आयकर अपीलसं./I.T.A. No.1263/Hyd/2025 ("नधा"रणवष"/ Assessment Year:2017-18) Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Rajahmundry. Ward-13(1), Pan: Aaypa8644C Hyderabad. (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) करदाताका""त"न"ध"व/ : Shri Gvn Hari, Advocate (Hybrid Mode) Assessee Represented By राज"वका""त"न"ध"व/ : Ms. Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar Department Represented By सुनवाईसमा"तहोनेक""त"थ/ : 05/03/2026 Date Of Conclusion Of Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख/ : 13/03/2026 Date Of Pronouncement Order Per Madhusudan Sawdia, A.M.: This Appeal Is Filed By Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“The Assessee”), Feeling Aggrieved By The Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi (“Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 16/06/2025 For The A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa Vs. Ito 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

Section 115BSection 127Section 143(2)

Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”) dated 16/06/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. Satyanarayana Murthy Adapa vs. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... order of the learned CIT (Appeals), NFAC is arbitrary, unjust, illegal and contrary to the facts of the case. 2) On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Learned Commissioner (Appeals), NFAC failed to appreciate the fact that, no order u/s 127 was passed for transfer

Mahmood Hussain Syed, Hyderabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 541/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, HON’BLE (Vice President), SHRI MANJUNATHA G, HON'BLE (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 50CSection 56(2)Section 56(2)(vii)

assessee is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 2 Mahmood Hussain Syed Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC”], Delhi, dated 03.10.2023, pertaining to the assessment year 2014-15. 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under : “1. The learned