“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

Arun Waman Koli, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

The appeals are dismissed

ITA 413/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Shashank MehtaFor Respondent: Ms. Naina K. Kumar

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

present appeal the Appellant has challenged the order, 1. dated 18/08/2022, 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 2015-16, whereby the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal filed

Goragandhi Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO-32(1)(5), Mumbai

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

ITA 1024/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmangoragandhicooperative Ito-32(1)(5), Housingsociety Ltd., Room.No 729, बनाम/ Svp Road, Borivali (W) Kautilya Bhavan, Vs. Mumbai –400 051. Bkc,Bandra (E), Mumbai – 400 051. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaaag3933F (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Pojan Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)

15/06/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: The Officer at the National Faceless Appeal

Ramnath Goenka Memorial Foundation, Mumbai vs. ITO (Exemption) 2(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 1004/MUM/2023[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleramnath Goenka Ito (Exemp)-2(2), Memorial Foundation, Room No. 601, 6Th बनाम/ 7Th Floor, Mafatlal Floor, Mtnl Bldg, Vs. Centre, Ramnath Dadar Road, Goenka Marg, Cumballa Hill, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400026 Mumbai – 400021. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabtr9441D (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. S.Venkatraman.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 11Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

13/06/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the Ex parte order

M/S G.G. Continental Traders Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 99/ASR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 43(5)

Meena, AM: Both the above appeals have been filed by the Assessee against the separate order passed by the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, Delhi each dt. 22/03/2022 in respect of Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2017-18. I.T.A. No. 97 & 99/Asr/2022 Assessment Year: 2015-16 & 2017-18 2 2. Since

M/S G.G Continental Traders Private Limited, Bathinda vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Bathinda

In the result, Ground No. 2 of the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 97/ASR/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar08 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 43(5)

Vinod Malik, Ballabgarh vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 150/DEL/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganeshvinod Malik, Vs. Ito, Opp. Jain Mandir, Main Ward-2(5), Bazar, Faridabad, Haryana Faridabad (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Ajfpn5466Q

For Appellant: Sh. Vijay Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Gurpreet Shah Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(iv)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

BALAGANESH, A. M.: 1. This appeal in ITA No.150/Del/2023 for A.Y. 2020-21 arises out of the order by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1048055300(1) dated 16.12.2022 (hereinafter referred to as ld CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed ... assessee has raised several grounds, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld CIT(A), NFAC was justified in upholding the disallowances made on account of employees contribution of Provident Fund/ ESI in the facts and circumstances of the case. Vinod Malik

Sbs International Private Limited, Manesar vs. DCIT Circle-22(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1494/DEL/2022[2019-20]Status: HeardITAT Delhi08 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: None

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(v)Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Date of Hearing : 08.06.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2023 ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, J.M. This appeal has been filed against the order of ld. NFAC, New Delhi dated 04.08.2021 for AY 2019-20. 2. When the appeal was called for hearing neither the assessee nor any authorized representative appeared ... parte qua assessee. 3. As per report of registry this appeal has been filed belatedly by 267 days on 27.06.2022 against the order of NFAC Delhi order dated 04.8.2021. The appellant vide letter dated 28.06.2022 submitted on 05.07.2022, explaining the delay has submitted that keeping in view the directions

Roshan Hospital, Bhopal vs. DCIT-5(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 110/IND/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore08 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyaniroshan Hospital Cpc 7-A-B, Govind Garden, Raisen Bangaluru Vs. Road, Govindpura, Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Revenue) Pan: Aasfr 4278 B Assessee By Ms. Shreya Jain Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 08.06.2023

Section 143(1)(a)Section 2(24)(x)Section 34(1)(iv)Section 36Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

interest demand there on. 2.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in disallowing and adding back Rs. 712810.00 to the total income of appellant considering that certain payments of employees contribution towards Page ... Acts. The same be kindly allowed. 3.That on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC has erred in not accepting the fact that appellant has made the certain payments of employees Contribution amounting to Rs. 712810.00 towards

Prakashsinh Thakor, Surat vs. ACIT, Circle-2(2), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 39/SRT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Hearing In Physical Court) Prakashsinh Thakor, A.C.I.T., 53, Pratap Nagar, Delad, Olpad, Circle2(2), Vs. Surat-394540 Surat. Pan: Alhpt 9125 B Appellant Respondednt

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short the ld. CIT(A)] dated 24/12/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal:- “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the ld. CIT(A),NFAC has erred in partly confirming the action of the assessing officer in imposing penalty on the total income of the assessee including income declared in the return

Shri 108 Gol Visha Shrimali Jain Charites Surat, Surat vs. DCIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 262/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat08 Jun 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Shri 108 Gol Visha Shrimali Jain D.C.I.T., (Cpc), Charities Surat, Bangalore. Vs. Jain Wadi Bh Bhulka Bhavan School, Anand Mahal Road, Adajan, Surat-395009. Pan No. Aabts 3025 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 11(1)(a)Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A)) dated 13/12/2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. The assessee has raised following grounds ... outset of hearing, the learned Authorised Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee submits that the impugned order by the ld. CIT(A), NFAC was passed on 13/12/2021 and the present appeal was filed on 05/09/2022, thus there is delay of 206 days in filing the appeal, for which an application

Beckhaul Digital Technologies Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 97/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(va)

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 16-01-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2020-21 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. In the facts and circumstances of the case ... count itself. 1.19. The aforementioned factual position of the no opportunity being granted to the assessee company, was brought to the notice of the NFAC, in the first appellate proceedings. However, those were ignored by the NFAC INFAC Order Page 4] Hence, the order passed in gross violation of Principles

Rashmi Jain, Imliwala Phatak, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 6(2) Jaipur, Ward 6 (2) Jaipur

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

ITA 134/JPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Then Cit(A)-2, Jaipur With In 2 Smt. Rashmi Jain Vs Ito,Ward 6(2), Jaipur Prescribed Limitation U/S 249(2) Of The I.T. Act I.E. 30 Days From The Service Of The Impugned Assessment Order (Ii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Reproducing The Reason For Delay By The Appellant Like ‘’Ipse Dixit’’ (Iii) That The Ld. Cit(A) Appears Erred In Applying Judicial Precedent For Dismissing The Appeal While The Precedents Are Supporting To The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 249(2)Section 41(1)

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 13-02-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2014-15 wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. That the ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing

Sagar International, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Offficer-19(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are partly allowed

ITA 964/MUM/2023[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri S Rifaur Rahmansagar International Ito – 19(3)(1) C/O Himanshu Gandhi 2Nd Floor, बनाम/ Ca, 16Th Floor D Wing, Matru Mandir, Vs. Trade World Tower, Nana Chowk, Kamala Mills, Grant Road (W), Compound, Mumbai-400007. Lower Parel, Mumbai 400013. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaafs6934R (""थ" / Respondent) (अपीलाथ" /Appellant)

For Appellant: Mr. Himanshu Gandhi.ARFor Respondent: Ms. Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 234BSection 250Section 271(1)(c)

14/06/2023 आदेश / ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE - JM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/CIT(A), Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and circumstances

Madhuri Sunil Zode, Mum vs. ADIT, Bangalore

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

ITA 35/MUM/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Madhuri Sunil Zode Adit Room No. 41, Building No. 28, Bangalore Sagarsangum, K. C. Road, Vs. Bandra Reclamati, Bandra (W), Mumbai-400 050

For Appellant: Ms. Kinjal BhutaFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 38Section 43B

been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘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) 2021-22. 2. The assessee

M/S Anant Singhania HUF, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 17(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 28/MUM/2023[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm M/S. Anant Singhania Huf Income Tax Officer, 17(1)(1) 1St Floor, New Hind House, 3 Mumbai N. M. Marg, Ballard Estate, Vs. Mumbai-400 001

For Appellant: Shri Dharan GandhiFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 194ISection 234BSection 250Section 37BSection 54

been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-19. 2. The assessee

ACIT-3(1)(1), Mumbai vs. M/S Axis Capital Limited, Mumbai

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

ITA 3140/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Acit-3(1)(1) M/S. Axis Capital Limited Mumbai Vs. Axis House, P. B. Marg, Mumbai-400 025 Pan/Gir No. Aaacu 8367 M (Appellant) (Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyari : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha Revenue By Date Of Hearing : 09.03.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023

For Appellant: Shri Rajnikant V. Chaniyari

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 37Section 40

been filed by the Revenue, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) u/s.250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2018-19. 2. The Revenue

Sumanta Kumar Pradhan, Khurda vs. ITO Khurda Ward, Khurda

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

ITA 102/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jun 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.102/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Sumanta Kumar Pradhan, Vs Ito Khurda Ward, Khurda S/O: Shri Gatiswar Pradhan, At: Gadadharpur, Sunakera, Po: Banapur, Dist: Khurda Pan No. :Apspp 8719 G (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Himansu Bhusan Jena, Advocate राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C. Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/06/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/06/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 24.11.2021 In Appeal No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2021-22/1037185913(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld Ar That The Assessee Is An Individual. It Was The Submission That As The Assessee Had Not Received The Notice, The Assessee Had Been Unable To Cooperate In The Assessment Proceedings. It Was Also The Submission That The Assessee Did Not Receive Any Notice For Hearing Before The Ld.Cit(A). It Was Submitted That Consequently The Assessee Was Also Not Able To Substantiate His Claims Before The Ld. Cit(A). It Was The Prayer Of The Ld. Ar That The Issues In This Appeal May Be Restored To The File Of The Ao & The Assessee Would Cooperate In The Set Aside Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri Himansu Bhusan Jena, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 24.11.2021 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1037185913(1) for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the ld AR that the assessee is an individual

Bijendra Singh, Sundargarh vs. ACIT, Circle Rourkela, Rourkela

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

ITA 101/CTK/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri S.K.Agarwalla, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.C. Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 36(1)(va)Section 37(1)Section 43B

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.03.2022 in Appeal No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1040885951(1) for the assessment year 2019-2020. 2. It was submitted by the ld AR that the issue involved in this appeal

Mohammad Saleem, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 63(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 28/DEL/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2011-2012

For Appellant: Shri Fareed Ahmed, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147

Pronouncement : 07.06.2023 ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.04.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2011-12. Application of assessee seeking condonation of delay 2. The ld. assessee’s representative (AR) submitted that the appeal

S K G Traders Private Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 22(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1188/DEL/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2023AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Anil Chopra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 2(24)(x)Section 36Section 43B

Pronouncement : 07.06.2023 ORDER Per Chandra Mohan Garg:- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 17.11.2022 of the Ld. NFAC, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2019-20. 2. The ld. Senior DR, candidly agreed to the prayer of assessee that the delay of 97 days