“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

Sri Rajanikanth Reddy, Bengaluru vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 577/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S.Shri Rajanikanth Reddy Vs The Income Tax Officer- 4(2)(2) No.21, 14Th Main, Venkateshwara Bengaluru Layout, Madiwala Bengaluru 560068 Pan – Ablpr5981K (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, Advocate Revenue By: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 13/09/2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 20/09/2022 O R D E R Per: Padmavathy, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Cit(A), Nfac, Delhi In Appeal No. Cit(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 Dated 25.05.2022 For Ay 2018-19. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - “1. The Order Of The Authorities Below In So Far As They Are Against The Appellant Are Opposed To Law, Equity, Weight Of Evidence, Probabilities, Facts & Circumstances Of The Case. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac For Short] Is Not Justified In Upholding The Determination Of Total Income Of Appellant In The Order U/S. 154 Of The Act, At Rs. 1,92,26,970/- As Against The Returned Income Of Rs. 1,09,63,817/-, Under The Normal Provisions, On Account Of The Disallowance Of Rs. 82,63,148/- Made U/S.36[1][Va] Of The Act, Based Upon The Details In The Tax Audit

For Appellant: Ms. Sunaina Bhatia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R. Narayan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234ASection 234BSection 36Section 43BSection 44A

Padmavathy, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. CIT(A)/Bengaluru-4/10069/2020-21 dated 25.05.2022 for AY 2018-19. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. The order of the authorities below ... equity, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the case. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income tax [Appeals] / National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC for short] is not justified in upholding the determination of total income of appellant in the Order

Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(1)(1), Bangalore

ITA 307/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariit(Tp)A No.307/Bang/2022 Assessment Year : 2017-18 M/S. Iron Mountain Services Private Limited, Vs. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Level 10, Citrine Building Bagmane World Circle – 3(1)(1), Technology Centre, 4, Outer Ring Road, Bengaluru. Mahadevpura, Bengaluru – 560 048. Pan : Aahcm 2578 F Appellant Respondent Appellant By : Shri. Chavali Narayanan, Ca Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Cit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru Date Of Hearing : 20.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 20.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2022 Of National Faceless Assessment Centre (Nfac), Delhi, (Hereinafter Referred To As The Assessing Officer, “Ao” In Short) Passed U/S.143(3) Read With Section 144C(13) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) In Relation To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee In Engaged In The Business Of Provision Of Information Technology Enabled Services (Ites), To Its Wholly Owned Holding Company. In Terms Of The Provisions Of Sec.92-A Of The Act, The Assessee & Its Wholly

For Appellant: Shri. Chavali Narayanan, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 92Section 92(1)Section 92B(1)Section 92C

Vasudevan, Vice President: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2022 of National Faceless Assessment Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (hereinafter referred to as the Assessing Officer, “AO” in short) passed u/s.143(3) read with Section 144C(13) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act) in relation

Etisalat Software Solutions Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 240/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri Bharadwaj Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Karanth, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 92BSection 92D

assessee. In this regard, the ld. AR relied on the decision of Mumbai ITAT in the case of Red Hat Pvt.Ltd. v. NFAC (2022) 139 taxmann.com 62 (Mum. Trib.). 24. We notice that the Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Red Hat Pvt.Ltd. (supra) has held that – “46. The assessee

Gandhi Sokkaiah Chettiar Gunasekaran, Madurai vs. ITO, Non-Corporate Ward 2(2), Madurai

The appeal stands partly allowed

ITA 142/CHNY/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am

For Appellant: Mrs. Sree Valli Lakshmi (Advocate) &For Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal (JCIT)-Ld. DR

Section 143(3)Section 69A

assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18 arises out of the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [CIT(A)] dated 27-12-2021 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s.143

K. Uttamlal & Company, Mumbai vs. Asstt CIT-13(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 712/MUM/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Amarjit Singhk. Uttamlal & Company Vs. Acit-13(2) 1St Floor, Bhagwan Maharshi Karve Road, Bhuvan, 196-198 New Marine Lines, Samuel Street, Churchgate - 400020 Musjid Bunder, Maharashtra – 400009 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaifk9976H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Tejinder Pal Singh Anand

Section 143(2)Section 144

Amarjit Singh (AM): The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O u/s 144 r.w.s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, for A.Y. 2010-11. The assessee has raised

Agappe Diagnostics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Dy.Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1870/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalagappe Diagnostics Limited, 401. 402,Jaisingh Business Centre, Sahar Road, Andheri East, Mumbai 400099 Pan: Aacca3940Q ...Appellant Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax- Circle – 1(1)(1), Mumbai, Room No.533, 5Th Floor, Aayakar Bhavan M.K. Road Mumbai – 400 020 ...Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Heera Ram.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Manoj Sinha.DR

Section 135Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 31Section 37

pronouncement : 19/09/2022 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: The assessee has filed an appeal against the order of CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, dated 15.06.2022 for the A. Y. 2018-19 passed under section 143(3) and 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961. The assessee

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1479/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

No.1476/Mum/2022 to 1479/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2013-14 arise out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.NFAC/2012-13/10047066, NFAC/2012-13/10047067 NFAC/2012- 13/10047068 & NFAC/2012-13/10047069 dated 13/05/2022 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.154 of the Income ... sake of convenience. 2. The only identical issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld. CIT(A), NFAC was justified in confirming the rectification order passed by the ld. AO u/s 154 of the Act by levying fees u/s 234E of the Act and consequentially

Late Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1478/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

Late Shri Jayesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1477/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

Late Shri Jayeesh Thar, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, TDS Ward Kalyan, Kalyan

In the result, the appeal stands allowed to the extent indicated in the order

ITA 1476/MUM/2022[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2013-2014

Section 154Section 200(3)Section 200ASection 220(2)Section 234E

Ram Ujagir Ram Sabda Pandey, Mumbai vs. Circle 20(3) (1), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed with the above directions

ITA 2254/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Sept 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 33(6)Section 69CSection 69c

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (‘NFAC)] dated 05.10.2021 & 06.10.2021 for the Assessment Years (AY) 2009-10 & 2010-11 respectively. The assessee has raised similar grounds of appeal in both the AYs. Firstly ... made by assessing officer 20(3)(1). In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the commissioner of Income tax (Appeal) NFAC erred in confirming addition of Rs. 886,900/- made by assessing officer. (B) RELIEF PRAYED 1. To delete the addition of Rs. 886,900/- made

Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax Officer, CPC, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 708/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Shashidhar Seetharam Sharma, Vs. Ito, Flat B002, Renaissance Brindavan, Cpc, Uttarahalli Main Road, Bengaluru. Bengaluru South, Bengaluru – 560 061. Pan : Ahwps 5221 Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Y. Sridhar, Ca Revenue By : Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, Jcit(Dr)(Itat), Bengaluru. Date Of Hearing : 19.09.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.09.2022 O R D E R Per N. V. Vasudevan

For Appellant: Shri. Y. Sridhar, CAFor Respondent: Shri. K. Sankar Ganesh, JCIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 90

Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order dated 26.7.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) pertaining to AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee filed the return of income on 24-07-2017 admitting an income of Rs.69.22,004 which included income ... Accordingly, the rectification application was rejected. The assessee has filed this appeal on 03-07-2020 against the order rejecting the rectification application. The NFAC rejected the said appeal by observing as follows: “4.2 The appellant relied on the ITAT -SMC-B" BENCH Bangalore, decision in the case of Brinda

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bengaluru vs. Electronic City Industries Association, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 707/BANG/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

grounds of appeal before, or at the time of the hearing of the appeal. 6. The order of the learned CIT(A), NFAC, may be set aside and the order of the Assessing Officer may be confirmed.” 3. The brief facts of the case are as follows: The assessee ... September, 2022. Devadas G* 5 ITA Nos.706 & 707/Bang/2022. M/s.Electronic City Industries Association. Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi 4. The Pr.CIT, Bengaluru. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions), Ward-1, Bengaluru vs. Electronic City Industries Association, Bengaluru

In the result, the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 706/BANG/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DRFor Respondent: --- None ---

Section 11Section 12ASection 2(15)

Jice Academy for Excellence Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 704/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Shri K. Sankar Ganesh, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 269SSection 271DSection 273B

submitted that in view of the above submission, the Tribunal is requested to delete the penalty levied by the A.O. of NFAC, Delhi for substantial cause of the justice. 3. Further, the Ld. A.R. relied on the order of the Tribunal in the case of Aakash Education & Development Trust

Sri Family Biznet Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 590/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Sept 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Ms.Padmavathy S, Am

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Priyadarshini Baseganni, Addl.CIT-DR

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

dated 31.05.2022. The relevant assessment year is 2018-2019. 2. The grounds raised read as follows:- “1. The learned Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals) (NFAC) has erred in facts and in law by passing an order which is opposed to the facts of the case. 2. The learned ... Padmavathy S) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 19th September, 2022. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC Delhi 4. The Pr.CIT, Bengaluru. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst

Anup Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A), Delhi

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

ITA 965/MUM/2021[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalanup Shah, 9/253 Sunny Side Building, Prof U U Bhat Marg, Matunga, Mumbai-400019. Pan: Aafps0147K ...... Appellant Vs. Cit (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Ashok Patil Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As (‘Nfac)] Dated 27.04.2021 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1 The Hon'Ble Cit (A) Erred In Confirming Addition Of Rs.15,65,250/- (Rupees Fifteen Lakhs Sixty Five Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Only) U/S 68 Of Income Tax Act, 1961, To The Total Returned Income Without Enquiring Into The Facts & 2 Ita No. 965 Mum 2021-Anup Shah

For Appellant: Sh. Ashok PatilFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 68

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (‘NFAC)] dated 27.04.2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1 The Hon'ble CIT (A) erred

Pushpaben Chandulal Shah, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed with the above directions

ITA 2096/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalpushpaben Chandulal Shah, D-3, Siddhapura Industrial Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. Pan: Aapps2890B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant By : Sh. Rajesh Shah & Sh. Nimish Shah Respondent By : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 04/07/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/09/2022 Order Per Gagan Goyal, A.M:

For Appellant: Sh. Rajesh Shah & Sh. Nimish ShahFor Respondent: Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(1)Section 148Section 250Section 33(6)

Siddhapura Industrial Estate, L.B.S Marg, Ghatkopar (W), Mumbai-400086. PAN: AAPPS2890B ...... Appellant Vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Mumbai. ..... Respondent Appellant by : Sh. Rajesh Shah & Sh. Nimish Shah Respondent by : Sh. Ashish Kumar, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 04/07/2022 Date of pronouncement : 16/09/2022 ORDER ... GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as (‘NFAC)] under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’) dated 29.09.2021 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. The assessee has raised

ITO WD - 25(2)(3), Mumbai vs. Denish Harilal Shah, Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed with the above directions

ITA 3617/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Sept 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri Gagan Goyalito, Ward-25(2)(3), C-10, R.No. 504, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. ..... Appellant Vs. Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Paan Villa, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Awgps3773C ...... Respondent C.O. No. 48/Mum/2020 In Ita No. 3617/Mum/2018 (A.Y. 2012-13) Mr. Denish Harilal Shah Flat No. 101, 1St Floor, Paan Villa, Sarojini Road, Vile Parle (W), Mumbai-400057 Pan: Awgps3773C ...... Appellant Vs. Ito, Ward-25(2)(3), C-10, R.No. 504, 5Th Floor, Pratyakshkar Bhavan, Bkc, Bandra, Mumbai-400051. ..... Respondent Appellant/Assessee By : Sh. Bharat Kumar Respondent/Respondent By : Sh. Mahita Nair

For Appellant: Sh. Bharat KumarFor Respondent: Sh. Mahita Nair

Section 143(1)Section 151

JCIT (2006) 206 CTR (SC). 5. Being aggrieved with the order of A.O Revenue preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT (A)-37, Mumbai (NFAC). Ld. CIT (A) also endorsed the views of A.O and dismissed the appeal of assessee. 6. Against this order of Ld. CIT (A) assessee preferred

Virugalpattipudhur Rimary Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Society, Tirupur vs. CIT-(A), NFAC, Delhi

ITA 632/CHNY/2022[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai15 Sept 2022AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.632/Chny/2022 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Virugalpattipudhur Primary Ward-1 Agricultural Co-Operative Credit Pollachi. Society, K, 752, Negamam, Virugalpattipudhur, Tirupur-642 120. Pan: Aaaav 9952D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.05.2022 and pertains to assessment year 2016-17. 2. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 24 days in appeals filed