← 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

Shri Avinash Bansal, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 4(3), Indore

ITA 682/IND/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 147Section 270A

Indore : Salaried Person 1, the above named deponent hereby state on solemn affirmation asunder: 01]. That an order has been passed by CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in my case on 25.10.2024 for the AY 2018-19. 02]. That I had entrusted the responsibility of handling the tax matters including timely ... Shri Anuj SWORN BEFORE Main Unfortunately, he had failed to regularly check his email RAJESH ΜΕΕΝΑ Panegy GOVERNMEN NOTARY passed by the CIT(A) NFAC was not brought to my attention in INDORE IM D where the communication from the Income Tax Department was received and the notice issued

Manju Yadav, Indore vs. ITO-1(2), Indore

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 469/IND/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 271(1)(b)

present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 10.03.2025 passed for A.Y. 2016-17. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. That on the facts

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Indore vs. Ferro Concrete Con India Pvt. Ltd., Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 111/IND/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year:2019-20 Deputy Commissioner Of Ferro Concrete Con India Income-Tax Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ 3/5/7B, Bhagirathpura Vs. Indore (Assessee/Appellant) (Revenue/Respondent) Pan: Aaacf2726K Revenueby Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Assessee By Shri Venus Rawka, Ar Date Of Hearing 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026

Section 115BSection 139Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first appeal dated 25.11.2024 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 22.02.2024 passed by learned Assessment Unit of Income-tax Department [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of Income

Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Devi Singh, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

ITA 201/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

under: (i) I.T.A. No. 20/Ind/2024 is a quantum-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 21.11.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 21.03.2016 passed by ITO 2(2), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 144 r.w.s

Income Tax Officer 2(1), Bhopal vs. Devi Singh, Bhopal

Appeal is dismissed being devoid of any

ITA 20/IND/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 2(14)Section 271(1)(c)

20/Ind/2024 is a quantum-appeal directed against order of first appeal dated 21.11.2023 passed by Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 21.03.2016 passed by ITO 2(2), Bhopal ["AO"] u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the Income

The DCIT, 1(1), Indore vs. M/S. Ritspin Synthetics Ltd., Pithampur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Department is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms indicated above, and the cross-objections filed by the assessee are dismissed as not pressed

ITA 213/IND/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri S. N. Agarwal, C.A. and Shri Pankaj Mogra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, CIT DR
Section 11Section 115BSection 143(2)Section 68

Cross Objection filed by the assessee against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 26.04.2023 passed for A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The Department has raised the following grounds of appeal: ITA No. 213/Ind/2023 & C.O. 4/Ind/2024 ACIT

Star Cotspin Limited, Gangrar Chittorgarh vs. Central Circle, Ajmer

ITA 1293/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur13 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CA & NareshJagetia, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Anita Rinesh, JCIT
Section 148ASection 153CSection 250Section 68Section 69A

been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), (ld. CIT(A))/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. It was common ground that the solitary issue

Sharda Devi, Basti vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

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

ITA 525/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2017-18 Sharda Devi, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, W/O Shyam Singh, Near Zila Basti-New Chikitsalaya, Purani Basti, Basti-2721 Pan: Auspd8424B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: None Revenue By: Sh. Amit Kumar, Dr Date Of Hearing: 27.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 16.01.2025 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Order Of Penalty Passed By The Ld. Ao Dated 17.01.2022 In Limine Without Going Into The Merits Of The Case. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “01. Because The Cit(A) Has Erred On Facts & In Law In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Being Cash Deposited In Bank During Demonetization Period Under Section 69A R.W.S. 115Bbe Of The Act, Which Addition Is Contrary To Facts, Bad In Law Be Deleted. 02. Because The Cit(A) Has Failed To Appreciate That The Assessee Is Carrying On The Business Of Household Items, Such As, Business Of Achar, Kuchry (Grocery) Declaring Profit Under Section 44Ad @ 8% Wherein The Provisions Of Section 68 & Section 69 Are Not Applicable, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Is Contrary To The Provisions Of Law Be Deleted. 03. Because The Explanation Furnished By The Assessee Has Not Been Found False Of Untrue, The Addition Of Rs.8,11,663/- Made By The Ao & Upheld By The Cit(A) Be Deleted.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR
Section 115BSection 147Section 271ASection 44ASection 68Section 69Section 69A

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 16.01.2025 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the order of penalty passed by the ld. AO dated 17.01.2022 in limine without going ... assessee, being 10% of the tax payable under section 115BBE. 3. Aggrieved with the said order, the assessee filed an appeal before the ld. NFAC on 28.08.2022. On 28.08.2022, the ld. CIT(A) found that there was a delay of 193 days in the filing of this appeal. After considering

Dr. R.M. Lohia Institute of Medical Sciences, Lucknow vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 519/LKW/2025[201-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. B.P. Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Neeraj Kumar, CIT DR
Section 10Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194CSection 194J

BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER A.Y. 2019-20 Dr. R.M. Lohia Institute of Medical vs. NFAC, Delhi Sciences, Vibhuti Khand, Gomti Nagar, Lucknow, U.P. PAN: AAATD9802F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. B.P. Yadav, Adv Revenue by: Sh. Neeraj Kumar ... That being aggrieved by the assessment order so passed, assessee filed appeal before the office of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC with a prayer for the condonation of delay of 20 days. 7. That the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) vide his order dated 27.08.2024 dismissed the appeal

Prime Products Limited, Kanpur vs. D.C.I.T. Circle 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 514/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 M/S Prime Products Ltd., 87/8, Kalpi Vs. The Dy. Cit, Road, Kanpur Circle-2(1)(1), Kanpur Pan: Aaacp8239K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M.: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Confirming The Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Levied By The Ld. Assessing Officer On 23.01.2022 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. That On The Facts & In Law, The Order Passed By Ld. Cit (Appeals), Nfac U/S 250 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(Appeals), Nfac Has Erred In Upholding Action Of Learned Ao In Levying Penalty Of Rs. 94,000/- Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3 That On The Facts & In Law, The Notice Issued For Levy Of Penalty Under Section 274 R.W.S 271(1)(C) Dated 14/02/2020 Is Vague & Defective Since, It Does Not Specify The Limb Under Which Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Was Initiated. 4 That On The Facts & In Law, The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Has Erred In Not Appreciating That The Assessee Had Offered An Explanation. The Penalty Proceedings & The Consequent Order Are Invalid & Void Ab Initio As The Same Were Initiated & Levied Solely On The Basis Of An Affidavit Without Independent Evidence Of Concealment.

For Appellant: Sh. Ashish Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR
Section 132Section 153ASection 250Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 69

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC in confirming the penalty under section 271(1)(c) levied by the ld. Assessing Officer on 23.01.2022 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. The grounds of appeal are as under ... THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE ORDER PASSED BY LD. CIT (APPEALS), NFAC U/S 250 OF THE ACT IS BAD IN LAW. 2 THAT ON THE FACTS AND IN LAW, THE LD. CIT(APPEALS), NFAC HAS ERRED IN UPHOLDING ACTION OF LEARNED AO IN LEVYING PENALTY

Keshav Singh, Ambedkar Nagar vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 127/LKW/2024[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow13 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

I.T.A. No.127/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2018-19 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL

Income Tax Officer, Ward-I, Mandi Gobindgarh vs. Rohit, Mandi Gobindgarh

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 905/CHANDI/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.905/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito-Ward-1 Shri Rohit Mandi Gobindgarh Shop No.308, Sec-26A बनाम/ At Sirhind, New Libra Kothi Amloh Road, Gobindgarh Vs. Railway Road, Sirhind Fatehgarh Sahib - 147301 Fatehgarh Sahib – 147301 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Asopr-3001-Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ashok Goyal (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Cit(A)] Dated 12-06- 2025 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S. 143(3) R.W.S 144B Of The Act On 24-12-2022. The Sole Grievance Of The Revenue Is Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1509.90 Lacs As Made By Ld. Ao On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchases While Framing The Assessment. The Sole Ground Of Appeal Read As Under: - Whether On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case, The Cit(A) / Nfac Was Right In Law In Deleting The Addition Of Rs.15,09,90,967/- As Shown Purchases Expenses Claimed By The Assessee & Nefac Has Added To The Total Income & Taxed As Income From Other Sources U/S 69C Of The Act?

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Goyal (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 12-06- 2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) r.w.s 144B ... assessment. The sole ground of appeal read as under: - Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the CIT(A) / NFAC was right in law in deleting the addition of Rs.15,09,90,967/- as shown purchases expenses claimed by the assessee and NeFAC has added

Vinod Kumar, Kurukshetra vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kurukshetra

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 797/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.797/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18) Shri Vinod Kumar Ito Ward-2 H.No.1230, Mohalla Misri बनाम/ Plot No. 4-5, Sector-5 Pati Amin, Kurukshetra Urban Estate, Near Community Center Vs. Haryana-136118 Kurukshetra – 136118 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Cgqpk-7282-N (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali Aggarwal (Ca) – Ld. Ars ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) – Ld. Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12-01-2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2017- 18 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 10-06-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 24-12-2019. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Addition Of Rs.32.28 Lacs For Non-Compliance By The Assessee. The Ld. Cit(A) Confirmed The Assessment For The Same

For Appellant: Sh. Ashwani Kumar & Ms. Deepali AggarwalFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017- 18 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 10-06-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis

Parmod Kumar Negi, Kinnaur vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur Bushahr

The appeal stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1291/CHANDI/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.1291/Chandi/2025 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Shri Parmod Kumar Negi Ito Rampur Bushahar Ward No. 3 Barang, Kalpa, Barang, बनाम/ Vs. Himachal Pradesh - 172001 Kinnaur, Himachal Pradesh – 172107 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Afepn-8712-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. M.R. Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. Cit) - Sr. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 12.01.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13.01.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Assessee For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018- 19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-02-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] On Best Judgment Basis U/S 144 Of The Act On 23-05-2021. In The Assessment Order, Ld. Ao Made Considered Agricultural Income Of Rs.33,24,120/- As Income From Other Sources For Non-Compliance By The Assessee. The Ld.

For Appellant: Sh. M.R. Sharma (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur (Addl. CIT) - Sr. DR
Section 144

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2018- 19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 22-02-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis

Gurjit Singh, Ropar vs. Income Tax Officer, Rupnagar

Appeal stand allowed accordingly

ITA 1175/CHANDI/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Tribunal.

For Appellant: Sh. Shashi Kant Sharma (ITP) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan (Addl. CIT) – Ld. Sr. DR
Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 69

Aforesaid appeal by assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2019- 20 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 18-07-2025 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] on best judgment basis u/s 147 r.w.s

ITO, Ward-3, Yamuna Nagar vs. Raman Kohli, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 445/CHANDI/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.445/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.437/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward - 3 Raman Kohli Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17, Huda, C/O Rama Rolling & General Mills बनाम/ Vs. Jagadhari, Haryana – 135003 Old Ambala Road Opp. Hindu Girls College Jagadhari (Haryana) - 135003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actpk-8263-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate), Sh. B.M. Monga (Advocate)&Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Have Been Preferred On Identical Facts & Issues. First, We

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

issues. First, we take up appeal for AY 2020-21 which arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 21-02- 2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

ITO, Yamuna Nagar vs. Raman Kohli, Yamuna Nagar

In the result, both the appeals stand dismissed

ITA 437/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh13 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am 1. आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.445/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21) & 2.आयकरअपीलसं./ Ita No.437/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Ward - 3 Raman Kohli Aaykar Bhawan, Sector-17, Huda, C/O Rama Rolling & General Mills बनाम/ Vs. Jagadhari, Haryana – 135003 Old Ambala Road Opp. Hindu Girls College Jagadhari (Haryana) - 135003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Actpk-8263-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate), Sh. B.M. Monga (Advocate)&Sh. Rohit Kaura (Advocate) – Ld. Ars Revenue By : Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 10-11-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 13-01-2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeals By Revenue For Assessment Years 2020-21 & 2021-22 Have Been Preferred On Identical Facts & Issues. First, We

For Appellant: Ms. Ekta Kumari (Advocate), Ms. Mehak Dhiman (Advocate)For Respondent: Sh. Bharat Bhushan Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual Mode)
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

issues. First, we take up appeal for AY 2020-21 which arises out of an order of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 21-02- 2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. AO u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

Jitubhai Shamaldas Tokle, Bhavnagar vs. The ITO, Ward-1(10), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 2385/AHD/2025[2022-23]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-Ms. Suchitra R. Kamblejitubhai Shamaldas Tokle, Income Tax Officer, Vs. Prop. Tokle Timbers, Ward 1(10), Plot No. 89/1, Ferry Road, Bhavnagar Juna Bunder, Bhavnagar-364 001 [Pan : Acspt 8928 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant Represented By : Shri Mehul K. Patel, Advocate Respondent Represented By: Shri Virbhadra Vishalavat, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 13.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2026 O R D E R Per Dr. B.R.R. Kumar, Vice-:-

Section 250Section 69

been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 17.10.2025 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 ... assessee has raised following grounds of appeal :- “(1) That on facts, and in law, the learned NFAC has grievously erred in not admitting the additional evidence in terms of Rule 46A of the IT Rules. (2) That on facts, and in law, the learned NEAC has grievously erred in confirming

Chudaji Thakor, Vasajada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2048/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 2047 & 2048/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 2(14)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

These both the appeals are filed against the orders both dated 25-08-2025 & 06-08-2025 respectively passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeals are as under:- ITA No. 2047-Ahd-2025 “1 Learned CIT(A), NFAC ... Assessee stated that quantum appeal is set aside by Hon. ITAT & order of Hon. ITAT was also sent to Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. 2 Learned CIT(A), NFAC had erred in treating sale of rural agricultural land as under reporting of income. In as much as, sale of agricultural land

Chudaji Thakor, Vasajada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Gandhinagar

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

ITA 2047/AHD/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Ahmedabad13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaita Nos. 2047 & 2048/Ahd/2025 Assessment Year 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Divya Agrawal, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Suthar, Sr. D.R
Section 144Section 2(14)Section 250Section 270ASection 271A

These both the appeals are filed against the orders both dated 25-08-2025 & 06-08-2025 respectively passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeals are as under:- ITA No. 2047-Ahd-2025 “1 Learned CIT(A), NFAC ... Assessee stated that quantum appeal is set aside by Hon. ITAT & order of Hon. ITAT was also sent to Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. 2 Learned CIT(A), NFAC had erred in treating sale of rural agricultural land as under reporting of income. In as much as, sale of agricultural land