“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

Rsb Projects Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-19(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 269/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: N.K. Billaiya & Ms. Astha Chandraasstt. Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Baldev Raj, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax-(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (“CIT(A)”) dated 21.12.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances ... hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "The Act"] and as upheld by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) - NFAC (hereinafter for the sake of brevity referred to as "The CIT (A)") is bad at law and void ab initio. 2 2. That on the facts

Paliwal Infrastructure P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle 19(1), New Delhi

Accordingly direct the AO to restrict the disallowance to Rs.4234/- only. The appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1840/DEL/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: SH. N. K. BILLAIYA (Accountant Member), MS. ASTHA CHANDRA (Judicial Member)

Section 10(34)Section 14A

04/12/2023 Date of Pronouncement: 04/12/2023 ORDER PER N. K. BILLAIYA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 19.05.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The sum and substance of the grievance of the assessee is that the CIT(A) erred in confirming

Sumit Chawla, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1787/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasadआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A Nos.1787 & 1523/Del/2023 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 बनाम Sumit Chawla Ito D-28,Satguru Market, Vs. Ward 63(2) Nahar Pur, Sector-7, Rohini, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Ajkpc0374L अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271B

षणाक"तारीख/Pronouncement on आदेश /O R D E R These two appeals are filed by the assessee against different orders of Ld.CIT(Appeals)-NFAC dated 15.05.2023 and 16.08.2022 for the AY 2010-11 in respect of confirming the addition on account of alleged receipt of contractual payments

Sumit Chawla, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 1523/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271B

Radhe Shyam Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 4(4) Jaipur, Jaipur

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

ITA 627/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 148

directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 15-08-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as ld.CIT(A)/(NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. On the facts and in the circumstances

Bhawani Devi, Alwar vs. ITO, Ward- Bhiwadi, Alwar

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

ITA 624/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargieya, AdvFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CITa

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 244ASection 69B

directed against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 11-09-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as ld.CIT(A)/(NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2012-13 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The impugned order u/s 147 r.ws.144 dated

Prem Prakash Agarwal, Naya Bazar Ajmer vs. DCIT Central Circle Ajmer, Jaipur Road Ajmer

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 523/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri C. M. Agarwal (CA)For Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 131Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”A” JAIPUR Jh lanhi xkslkbZ] U

Manohar Lal Alwani, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 7(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 484/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Deepak SharmaFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 127Section 147Section 148Section 54F

This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Here in after referred as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2010-11 dated 29.05.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO, passed under Section 147/143

Fatehpuria Transformers and Witchgears Pvt. Ltd, Jaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Jaipur

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

ITA 387/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Sanjeev Kumar MathurFor Respondent: Sh. A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 801ASection 801A(5)Section 80I

JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by assesseeis arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28/04/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2011-12, which in turn arise from the order of the Assessing Officer dated 13.11.2018 passed under section

Latafat Hussain, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 382/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Ashish KhandelwalFor Respondent: Shri A. S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 50CSection 54

This appeal filed by assessee is arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 06/06/2023 [here in after (NFAC)] for assessment year 2010-11, which in turn arise from the order of the ITO Ward 3(2), Jaipur dated 27.12.2018 passed under 147 r.w.s

Ashok Kumar Vishwkarma, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer-2, Katni

In the result, the appeal of the assesse is allowed

ITA 74/JAB/2023[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Jabalpur01 Dec 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumarsh. Yogesh Kumar Us

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ravi Mehrotra, JCIT-DR

Section 133(6)Section 44

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH ‘DB’, JABALPUR Before Dr. B. R. R. Kumar, Accountant Member Sh. Yogesh

Jewels International, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO Exemption Ward, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 81/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.81/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2015-2016) Jewels International, Vs Dcit, Bhubaneswar A/3, Rrl Campus, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Aaatj 2593 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None (Written Submission Filed) राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 08.02.2023, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1049550046(1), For The Assessment Year 2015-2016. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, However, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Has Filed Written Submission, Which Is On Record. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue. Thus, We Proceeded To Dispose Off The Appeal Of The Assessee After Considering The Arguments Of The Ld. Sr. Dr & The Written Submission Filed By The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: None (Written Submission filed)For Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 08.02.2023, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049550046(1), for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, ld. AR of the assessee

Jewels International, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 77/CTK/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.77/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2016-2017) Jewels International, Vs Dcit, Bhubaneswar A/3, Rrl Campus, Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751013 Pan No. :Aaatj 2593 H (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 01/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 12.12.2022, Passed In Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1047942924(1), For The Assessment Year 2016-2017. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, It Is Noticed That The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Against The Intimation Issued U/S.143(1) Of The Act By The Cpc. The Ld.Dr Was Requested To Show The Copy Of The Show Cause Notice, If Any Issued In Line With The Proviso To Section 143(1) Of The Act, To Which The Ld. Dr Was Unable To Produce Any Document. As The Intimation U/S.143(1) Of The Act Has Been Issued Without The Necessary Show Cause Notice As Required Under The Proviso To Section 143(1) Of The Act, The Intimation

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.12.2022, passed in ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1047942924(1), for the assessment year 2016-2017. 2. At the time of hearing, it is noticed that the appeal of the assessee

Hanuman Khedaria HUF, Rourkela vs. ITO Ward 2, Rourkela

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 275/CTK/2023[ASST. YEAR 2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2023

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2014-15 Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Hanuman Khedaria (Huf), Vs. Ito, Ward Ito, Ward-2, Rourkela. C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, C/O. Kadmawala & Co., Ca, Budhram Budhram Oram Oram Market, Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela. Kachery Road, Rourkela. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No. (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca .R.Sahu, Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Shri Charan Dass, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01/12 12/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12 Date Of Pronouncement : 01/12/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

Section 131

assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A),NFAC, CIT(A),NFAC, Delhi, Delhi, dated 10.7.03 in in Appeal Appeal No. No.CIT(A), Sambalpur/10349/2016 Sambalpur/10349/2016-17 for the assessment year 2014 2014-15. 2. Shri ... Hanuman Khedaria (HUF), c/o. Kadmawala & Co., CA, Budhram Oram Market, Kachery Road, Rourkela 2. The Respondent: ITO, Ward-2, Rourkela 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- Sambalpur, 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Mita Mohanty, Bhubaneswar vs. DCIT 2(1), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 272/CTK/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack01 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2018-19 Mita Mohanty, Hig Mita Mohanty, Hig -90, K-5, Vs. Dcit, Circle Dcit, Circle-2(1), Kalinga Kalinga Vihar, Nr Arnold Vihar, Nr Arnold Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar School, School, Kalinga Kalinga Vihar, Vihar, Bhubaneswar Bhubaneswar Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Acypm 6381 Q (Appellant) ) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.R.Sahu, Ca , Ca Revenue By : Shri Charan Dass, Sr : Shri Charan Dass, Sr Dr

For Appellant: Shri M.R.Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Shri Charan Dass, Sr

assessee aga This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld inst the order of the ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 20.7.2023 in Appeal No. in Appeal No. NFAC/2017- 18/1003952 for the assessment year ... Kalinga Vihar, Nr Arnold School, Kalinga Vihar, Bhubaneswar 2. The Respondent: DCIT, Circle-2(1), Bhubaneswar 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. Pr.CIT-, Bhubaneswar 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

Tech Mahindra Limited (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy Commissioner of Income Tax Range 1(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 2463/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Tech Mahindra Limited Dy. Cit, Range 2(2) (Earlier Known As Mahindra Mumbai Engineering Services Limited) Vs. Gateway Building, Apollo Bunder, Mumbai-400 001 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Assessee) (Revenue) : & Asst. Cit-2(3)(1) Tech Mahindra Ltd. Mumbai (Earlier Known As Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd.) Vs. Mahindra Tower, 1St Floor, B Wing, Dr. G M Bhosale Marg, P K Kurne Chowk, Worli, Mumbai-400 018 Pan/Gir No. Aaacm 3484 F (Revenue) : (Assessee)

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) passed u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2009-10 on various grounds. (Earlier known

DCIT 2(2), Mumbai vs. Mahindra Engineering Services Ltd, Mumbai

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

ITA 2282/MUM/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

For Appellant: Shri Viral ShahFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha

Section 10(35)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

Singh & Co., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

Appeal of the Assessee is dismissed, as above

ITA 442/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice C.V. Bhadang & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Blea.Yr. :2011-12 Singh & Co., Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3), A-6, Raj Avenue, Dlf Society, Ghaziabad Block-D, Sahibabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh-201005 (Pan: Abtps2673K) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271BSection 44A

Date of Pronouncement 01.12.2023 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP: This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 12.11.2021 which in turn has arisen from an order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad dated 26.06.2019 under section 271B

Satinder Paul Gupta (Through Sahil Gupta, Legal Heir), New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-6(2), New Delhi

The appeal of the Assessee is allowed, as above

ITA 2977/DEL/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Justice C.V. Bhadang & Shri G.S. Pannu, Hon’Blea.Yr. :2015-16 Satinder Paul Gupta Vs. Dcit, Circle 6(2), (Through Sahil Gupta, Legal New Delhi Heir), House No. 11, Road No. 63, West Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi (Pan: Aappg2434D) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Shri Pranav Yadav, Advocate Department By Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr

Section 143(3)Section 154Section 234B

Date of Pronouncement 01.12.2023 ORDER PER G.S. PANNU, VP: This appeal by the Assesseeis directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 26.10.2022which in turn has arisen from an order passed by Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(2), New Delhi dated 31.7.2019 under ... going into the facts of the case and without giving any reason why the claim of the appellant is not found tenable. iv) That NFAC, Delhi has erred in confirming the interest charged u/s. 234B and 234C as correct without going into the details of calculation of interest submitted

Ramesh Mannava, Guntur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Guntur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as mentioned herein above

ITA 252/VIZ/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam01 Dec 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./ I.T.A. No. 252/Viz/2023 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16) Mr. Ramesh Mannava, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 5-60-213/1, Msr Cotton Ward-2(1), Corporation, 4/4 Ashok Nagar, Guntur. Guntur, Andhra Pradesh-522007. Pan: Agdpm 8289 Q (अपीलाथ"/ Appellant) (""यथ"/ Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant By : Sri C. Subrahmanyam, Ar ""याथ" क" ओर से / Respondent By : Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. Ar

For Appellant: Sri C. Subrahmanyam, ARFor Respondent: Sri Madhukar Aves, Sr. AR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)

This appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [CIT(A)-NFAC] vide DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1054686283(1), dated 28/07/2023 2 arising out of the order passed U/s. 147 r.w.s 144 of the Income ... Aggrieved by the order of the Ld. AO, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC. 5. On appeal, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte as the assessee did not comply with the notices issued on the dates