“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

Shri Mandorana Vividh Karyakari Sahakari Mandli Limited, Jnd-Veraval vs. Income Tax Officer, Veraval

In the result, grounds raised by the assessee in both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 870/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Shri R. D. Lalchandani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. (DR)

Section 147

single assessee, pertaining to assessment years 2019-20 and 2018-19, are directed against the separate orders passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals), vide both order dated 18.07.2025, which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer

Himesh Rameshchandra Gohil, Bharuch vs. ITO Ward 1(5), Jamnagar

In the result, ground raised by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 843/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini

For Appellant: Ms. Rutvika, ARFor Respondent: Shri Gopi Nath Chaubey, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 80G

directed against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi /Commissioner of Income-tax(Appeals) [in short “Ld.CIT(A)”] dated 30.09.2025, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B

Jiteshkumar Madhavbhai Jagani, Surat vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 20/SRT/2026[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay E Uke, Sr DR

Section 148Section 149Section 149(1)(b)Section 250

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 20.11.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year

Manishabne Kaizad Motawala, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3) (1), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 807/SRT/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.807/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2022-23 Manishabne Kaizad Motawala The Tto बनाम/ A-32, Yoganand Nagar Ward-2(3)(1) V/S. Sacin Roadsankri Surat – 395 001 Akoti B.O., Surat 394 355 (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aotpp 0951 L (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rasesh Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 250

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 04/06/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. #&थ% / The Respondent. संबंिधत आयकर आयु' / Concerned CIT 3. 4. आयकर आयु' अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi िवभागीय #ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण 5. सूरत /AR,ITAT, Surat/Ahmedabad. , , गाड" फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&ािपत #ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Savita Hemant Rathod, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 783/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargआयकर अपील सं /Ita No.783/Srt/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2017-18 Savita Heman Rathod The Income Tax Officer बनाम/ K – 2001 New T.T. Market Ward-2(3), V/S. Ring Road Surat – 395 002 Surat – 395 001 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aawpr 6274 M (अपीलाथ&/ Appellant) ('( यथ&/ Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Shaunak R. Zaveri, Ca Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 08/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 19/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Shaunak R. Zaveri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 250Section 69A

present appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’] dated 28/05/2025 passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for the Assessment ... appeal: “1.0 That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [here-in- after referred to as Ld. CIT(Appeals)] was not justified and grossly erred in confirming the action of the A.O. in confirming

Riteshkumar Bhupendrabhai Choksi, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 342/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

appeals have been filed by the assessee against two separate orders passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. One appeal is directed against the order dated 20.01.2025 passed in quantum proceedings arising out of reassessment framed u/s 147 read with section ... grounds of appeal: ITA No. 341& 342/SRT/2025 Riteshkumar Bhupendrabhai Choksi Vs. ITO Asst. Year : 2012-13 - 2– “1. The learned NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE [NFAC] /CIT(Appeals) has grievously erred both in law and on facts in upholding legality of reopening of reassessment of assessment

Riteshkumar Bhupendrabhai Choksi, Vadodara vs. ITO, Ward 1(5), Bharuch

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

ITA 341/SRT/2025[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 69

Late Noorulkalam Shaikh Through His Lh Husnejamal N Shaikh, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(1) Surat, Surat

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

ITA 1/SRT/2025[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Hiren R. Vepari, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Kumar, Sr DR

Section 250Section 68

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 23.10.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘Ld. CIT (A)’ in short), under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’ in short) for Assessment Year

Kamlesh Kumar Gadiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Surat

In the result, ground No.1 and 2 raised by the assessee is allowed

ITA 772/SRT/2024[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Surat19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Namita Patel, Sr. DR

Section 10(38)Section 250Section 68Section 69C

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Kolkata vs. Assessing Officer, Jamshedpur

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes only

ITA 207/RAN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay(Virtual Hearing) Anwesh Kumar Chakraborty, Assessing Officer, Flat No. 04, Ashabori Apartment, 11/1 Jamshedpur. Vs. Kolupara Lane, Dhakuria, Kolkata-700031 (West Bengal) Pan No. Aiqpc 6936 M Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 80D

RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY, A.M. 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 17/01/2025 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16 by raising following grounds of appeal

Shiv Shambhu Iron and Steel Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. ACIT Circle 3(1), Jamshedpur

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 286/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.286/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Shiv Shambhu Iron & Steel Pvt. Ltd.…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Aalcs7663M] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2011–12 Declaring A Total Income Of ₹30,17,990. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & An Assessment Under Section 143(3) Of The Act Was Completed Determining The Total Income At ₹39,08,910. Subsequently, Based On Information Received, It Was Noticed That The Assessee Company Had Shown Receipt Of ₹1,49,00,000 Comprising Share Capital Of ₹14,90,000 & Share Premium Of ₹1,34,10,000. On The Basis Of This Information, The Assessing Officer Issued Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. In Response To The Notice, The

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

order : January 19, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 12.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Jaiswal Steel Industries Private Limited, Jamshedpur vs. ITO Ward 2(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 284/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi19 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.284/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Jaiswal Steel Industries Pvt. Ltd. ….…….…............................……….……Appellant Dropadi Bhawan, Station Road, Jugsalai, Jharkhand- 831006. [Pan: Aabcj4471C] Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Jamshedpur.….....…..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 15, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : January 19, 2026 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 02.04.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”).

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69Section 69A

order : January 19, 2026 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”) dated 02.04.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Amplex Projects Private Limited, Agartala vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle Silchar, Silchar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 333/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati19 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A).

For Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT

Section 1Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 245DSection 245D(4)Section 250

hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] dated 22.08.2025, DIN & order No. 2 M/s Amplex Projects Private Limited ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2025-26/1079874749(1) on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That ... order of the Assessing Officer dated 15.03.2016 passed under Section 143(3) of the Act, the assessee filed appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) on 01.04.2016, the appeal was dismissed and the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) passed order on 03.09.2025. 7. Aggrieved from the above order the assessee

Gaurab Kumar, Puraini Bazar vs. ITO Ward 3(4) Saharsa, Koshi Chowk Saharsa

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

ITA 461/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the CIT(A). However, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal ex parte for non-compliance, without adjudicating the issues on merits. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. In the instant case, there is a delay of 100 days in filing the present

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 44A

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee is an individual who did not file his return

Sanjeev Kumar, Muzaffarpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Patna

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose,

ITA 458/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI LAXMI PRASAD SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SONJOY SARMA (Judicial Member)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69A

Ramanlal Pirodia, Ratlam vs. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Central-3, Aaykar Bhawan

ITA 778/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore19 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Section 115BSection 133ASection 28Section 68Section 69B

Ramanlal Pirodia ITA No. 778/Ind/2025 Assessment Year: 2019-20 Ramanlal Pirodia ITA No.778/Ind/2025 Assessment year 2019-20 2) That the

Narsingh, Pilibhit vs. Income Tax Officer-2(4), Pilibhit

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

ITA 727/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147

I.T.A. No.727/Lkw/2025 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘SMC’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Sanjeev Kumar, Ropar, Punjab vs. Ward-2(2), Ropar, Punjab

ITA 303/CHANDI/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 303/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sanjeev Kumar, The Ito, M/S Khurana Filling Station, बनाम Ward 2(2), Chamkaur Sahib, Ropar Vs. Distt. Ropar, Punjab 140121 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Ajppk8321E अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr.Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 24.12.2024 passed by the Ld. Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. The grounds raised are as under:- 303-Chd-2025 2 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy ... NFAC in Appeal No. CIT (A), Chandigarh- 1/10688/2016-17 has erred in passing order dtd. 24.12.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A) has erred

Income Tax Office, Ludhiana vs. Rippan Dhir, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the Revenue stands dismissed

ITA 298/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 298/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ito, Rippan Dhir, Ludhiana बनाम 247, New Hira Nagar St No. 2, Vs. Kakowal Road, Ludhiana 141008 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Agapd1957D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajat Kumar Kureel, CIT DR

Section 144Section 251Section 251(1)Section 69ASection 69C

this case has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 01.01.2025 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. The grounds raised are as under: - 1. That, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in allowing the appeal

Sukhjit Kaur, Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Ropar

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

ITA 296/CHANDI/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 296/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sukhjit Kaur, The Ito, Vill Suleman Shikoh बनाम Ward 2(2), Bhallian, Ropar Vs. Chamkaur Sahib, Rupnangar, Punjab 140111 "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Edspk0179R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.01.2026 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am :

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69

this case has been filed by the assessee against the order dated 14.08.2024 passed by the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. The grounds raised are as under:- 1. That on facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, Worthy CIT(A), NFAC