← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

M/S. Bankura District Central Co Operative Bank Ltd., Bankura vs. ITO, Ward-4(4), TDS, Bankura.

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

ITA 1133/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy]

Section 133ASection 194ASection 201(1)

Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhidated 18.03.2022 for AY 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is only against the order of Ld. CIT(A) upholding the order ... Bankura Dist. Central Coop. Bank Ltd., AY 2017-18 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant– 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata, (sent through e-mail).By Order

Kurkuri Gramsava Samabaya Krishi Unnayan Samity Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-24(4), Hooghly., Chinsurah

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

ITA 1093/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

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 17.08.2023 for the AY 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel ... Associates, Advocates, Siddha Gibson, 1, Gibson Lane, Suite-213, 2nd Floor, Kolkata-700069 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-24(4), Hooghly 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Mohmmad Mukul, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda

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

ITA 1081/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148

आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.08.2023 for the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised ... forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Mohmmad Mukul, Puratuli Bandh Road, Barakarkhana, Englishbazar, Malda-732101 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Mohmmad Mukul, Malda vs. ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda.

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

ITA 1080/KOL/2023[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 147Section 148

आदेश Per Rajesh Kumar, AM: These are the appeals preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 21.08.2023 for the AY 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised ... forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Mohmmad Mukul, Puratuli Bandh Road, Barakarkhana, Englishbazar, Malda-732101 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-3(2), Malda 3. Ld. CIT(A)- NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Life Care Medical Complex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CPC, Bengaluru & NFAC, Delhi, Bengaluru

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

ITA 1074/KOL/2023[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 115BSection 143(1)Section 154Section 250(5)

Rajesh Kumar, AM: This is the appeal preferred by the assessee is against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the Ld. CIT(A)”] dated 11.08.2023 for the AY 2020-23. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee is against ... order forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Life Care Medical Complex Pvt. Ltd., 1/2A, Hazra Road, Kolkata- 700026 2. Respondent – CPC, Bengaluru 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Amrita Choudhury, Uttar Dinajpur vs. ITO, WD-2(4), Raiganj.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1063/KOL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 69A

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 11.08.2023 for the AY 2017-18. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee ... forwarded to: 1. Appellant- Amrita Choudhury, Nil, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal, 733134. 2. Respondent – ITO, Ward-2(4), Raiganj 3. Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Ld. Pr. CIT- , Kolkata 5. DR, Kolkata Benches, Kolkata (sent through e-mail)By Order

Alishan Steels (P) Ltd, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee allowed

ITA 1000/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy]

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

Shri Rajesh Kumar, AM This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.08.2022 for AY 2014-15. 2. The only issue raised by the assessee in the various grounds of appeal is against the order ... Alishan Steels Pvt. Ltd. AY 2014-15 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant– 2. Respondent – 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT , 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata, (sent through e-mail).By Order

Lilasons Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 133/IND/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 23.01.2023 & 06.02.2023 for A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals except the quantum of addition

Lilasons Breweries Ltd., Bhopal vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax 1 (1), Bhopal

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

ITA 132/IND/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore05 Jan 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 147Section 153Section 234BSection 271(1)(c)

These two appeals by the Assessee are directed against two separate orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 23.01.2023 & 06.02.2023 for A.Ys.2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. 2. The assessee has raised common grounds in these two appeals except the quantum of addition

Mada Dilipkumar Raval, Mumbai vs. CIT(A), Delhi

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

ITA 566/MUM/2023[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalmanda Dilipkumar Rawal 60/3, Jariwala Building, Sane Guruji Road, Tardeo, Mumbai – 400 034 Pan: Adlpr7891Q ....... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ..... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Priyavrat GuptaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 132Section 132(4)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 68

pronouncement : 05/01/2024 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 23.12.2022 u/s. 250 of the Income 2 Manda Dilipkumar Raval Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee

Infinite Water Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

In the result ground raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3235/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Gagan Goyalinfinite Water Solutions Pvt. Ltd. B1/B2 701, Marathon Innova, Off. Ganpatrao Kadam Marg, Lower Parel, Mumbai – 400 013 Pan: Aabcl8898N ....... Appellant Vs. Cpc, Bengaluru, Karnataka – 560500 ...... Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ronak Doshi and Ms. Vrushti GalaFor Respondent: Shri H.M. Bhatt
Section 143Section 143(1)Section 145Section 145ASection 154Section 2Section 250Section 43

hearing : 28/12/2023 Date of pronouncement : 05/01/2024 ORDER PER GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT (A), NFAC dated 20.07.2023 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2021-22. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Royal Marwar Hospitality Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 3(3)(1), Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No. 2 & 3 raised by the Appellant are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 3147/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Himanshu GandhiFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

present appeal the Assessee has challenged the order, 1. dated 21/08/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee

Rohan Nitin Mehta, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 25(3)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 3121/MUM/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Ito Ward 25(3)(3) Rohan Nitin Mehta Room No.606,6 Th Floor, 42, Nirmal Bunglow, C-10, Pratyakshkar Bhawan, 10Th Floor, Jai Hind Chs, Bandra Kurla Complex, Vs. Jvpd, Vile Parle, Bandra East, West, Mumbai -400 056 Mumbai-400 051 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Amnpm3626M Assessee By : Shri Jitendra Singh (Adv.) Revenue By : Shri Mahita Nair (Sr. Dr.) Date Of Hearing: 02.01.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2024

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Singh (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Mahita Nair (Sr. DR.)
Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148Section 234ASection 68

appeal against that appellate order raising following grounds of appeal:- Rohan Nitin Mehta; A.Y. 13-14 “1. The Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the "Ld. CIT(A)"] erred in passing the order dated 05.07.2023 upholding the action of the Ld. Income Tax Officer Ward

Nngd Leasing and Trading Private Limited ( Formerly Murugun Textile Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT-1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 2753/MUM/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Shri Rahul Chaudhary, Jm Nngd Leasing & Trading Private Limited The Dcit (Formerly Murugun Textile P. Ltd.) Circle 1(1)(1), 102, Jamuna Chs Ltd, Plot Vs. Aaykar Bhavan, No.65, Sher E-Punjab Society, M.K. Road, Mumbai-400 020 Mahakali Caves Road, Andheri (East), Mumbai -400 093 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcm4669F

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria, ARFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, SR DR
Section 143Section 37

circumstances of the case, and in law, the appellate order framed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi ("NFAC") ['Ld. CIT (A)'] be held as bad, and illegal and without jurisdiction, as the same is framed in breach of the statutory provisions and the scheme

DCIT-6(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Aasan Corporate Solutions Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed and appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2710/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhaasan Corporate Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) Solutions Private Limited 563B, 5Th Floor, 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower Aayakar Bhavan, Annexe, Ganpatrao Kadam Maharishi Karve Road, Marg Lower, Parel Mumbai - 400020 Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No: Aajca7980P Appellant .. Respondent Dcit, Circle 6(1)(1) Vs. M/S Aasan Corporate Room No. 504, 5 Th Floor, Solutions Private Limited Araykar Bhavan 4Th Floor, Piramal Tower M.K. Road, Annexe, Ganpatrao Mumbai – 400 020 Kadam Marg Lower, Parel Mumbai – 400013 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No:Aajca7980P Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Ronak Doshi A/W Priyank Gandhi Respondent By : Ajay Chandra Date Of Hearing 21.12.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 05.01.2024

For Appellant: Ronak doshi a/wFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra
Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 40

Both these cross appeals are filed by the assessee and revenue for assessment year 2017-18 directed against the common order of CIT(A) NFAC. Since, common issue on identical facts are involved in these appeals filed by the assessee and revenue, therefore, for the sake of convenience both these

DCIT, Cir-3(3)(1), Mumbai vs. East West Pipeline Pvt Ltd., Mumbai

Accordingly, without any adjudication upon the merits, Ground No. 5 to 8 to raised by the Revenue are dismissed as being infructuous

ITA 1999/MUM/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das
Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 147Section 73(1)

present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order, 1. dated 30/03/2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2014-15, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal

Aasan Corporate Solutions Private Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT Circle 6(1)(1), Mumbai

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1968/MUM/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhaasan Corporate

For Appellant: Ronak doshi a/wFor Respondent: Ajay Chandra
Section 14ASection 23(1)(a)Section 40

Both these cross appeals are filed by the assessee and revenue for assessment year 2017-18 directed against the common order of CIT(A) NFAC. Since, common issue on identical facts are involved in these appeals filed by the assessee and revenue, therefore, for the sake of convenience both these

M/S Novateur Electricals and Digital Systems Pvt Ltd. (As Successor of Legrand (India) Private Limited), Mumbai vs. DCIT Range 2(3)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1800/MUM/2023[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Amarjit Singh, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.1800/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2004-05) Novateur Electrical & बिधम/ Dcit, Range-10(3)(1) Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. Room No.552, Aaykar Vs. (As Successor Of Legrand Bhavan, M. K. Road, (India) Pvt. Ltd.) Mumbai-400020. 61/62 Kalpatru Square, 6Th Floor, Off Andheri Kurla Road, Mumbai-400059. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacce4671N (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Nikhil Tiwari Revenue By: Shri H. M Bhat (Sr. Dr) Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 17/10/2023/(22.12.2023) घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 05/01/2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Company Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 23.03.2023 For The Assessment Year 2004-05. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Shri Nikhil Tiwari Appearing For The Assessee Has Drawn Our Attention To Additional Ground Nos. 8 & 9 Wherein Assessee Challenges The Validity Of The Assessment Order Passed In The Name Of The Non-Existent Entity [M/S.Legrand (India) Private Limited (Hereinafter “M/S. Legrand”/Non-Existent/ Merged Entity] & Not In The Name Of The Successor Entity I.E. M/S. Novateur Electrical & Digital Systems Pvt. Ltd. [Hereinafter “M/S.

For Appellant: Shri Nikhil TiwariFor Respondent: Shri H. M Bhat (SR. DR)
Section 142(1)Section 143(3)

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee company against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 23.03.2023 for the assessment year 2004-05. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee Shri Nikhil Tiwari appearing for the assessee

M/S. S.K.Ventures, Mumbai vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

ITA 2173/MUM/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jan 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Devendra Jain, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Avinash Baburao Karpe, Sr. A.R
Section 44ASection 80Section 80I

assessee by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 09.09.2021 passed by passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2017-18 on the grounds inter alia that

Pds Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 1466/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. C. N. Prasaddr. B. R. R. Kumar

For Appellant: Sh. Pradeep Dinodia, Adv. &For Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Kumar, Accountant Member: The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.03.2023. 2. Following grounds have been raised by the assessee: “1. That the Ld. Assessing Officer and the honourable Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) is unjustified