← 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

Sarit Gupta (HUF), New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 43(6), New Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6662/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 149(1)Section 3

SUDHIR KUMAR JM: The assessee preferred the appeal, challenging the order dated 28-08-2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (in short NFAC) arising out from the assessment order dated 17-05-2023 passed by the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2015-16 under the section 147 r.w.s 144B ... penalty proceedings was also initiated. 4. Aggrieved the order of the AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the NFAC who vide order dated 28-08-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being, aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal

Vijay Kumar, Karnal vs. Income Tax Officer, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6652/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2019-20 Vs Vijay Kumar, Ito, H.No. 841, Sector-9, Urban Aaykar Bhawan, Estate, Karnal, Sector-12, Karnal, Haryana-132001 Haryana [Pan: Ashpk3257A) (Respondent) (Appellant)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Date of Pronouncement: ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 4.9.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20 and arises out of the penalty order dated 10.9.2024 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 272A

Sanjay Jain, Saharanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(1), Saharanpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6650/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2013-14 Vs Sanjay Jain, Ito, Ward-3(3)(1), 39, Mission Compound, Sahranpur-247001 Saharanpur-247001 Uttar Pradesh [Pan: Ackpj3369F) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 145(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

Pronouncement: 13/03/2026 ORDER PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.08.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2013-14 and arises out of the penalty order dated 12-03-2018 passed by the Assessing Officer under Section ... order imposing penalty of Rs. 16,28,424/- under said section are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The NFAC has also erred in confirming the same. 2. That, the NFAC has failed to appreciate, that, the notice issued u/s. 271(1)(c) is illegal

Bmr Overseas Limited, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 4(2), C.R. Building Delhi 110002, Delhi

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 6646/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. S. Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Bmr Overseas Limited, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(2), Zb-33/487, Plot No. 4 & 5, C.R. Building, Dilshad Garde New Delhi Industrial Area, Shahdara, Delhi – 110 095 [Pan No. Aafcb8509D) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 115BSection 143Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 156Section 157ASection 68

KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld. NFAC”] vide order dated 25.08.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2017-18 arising out the assessment order dated 18.05.2023 u/s.143 r.w.s section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income ... rate of 60% under section 115BBE of the Act as amended by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016. (ii) That the NFAC has failed to appreciate that the amendment brought out by the Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 which received assent of President on 15th December, 2016 cannot

DCIT, Delhi vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6177/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 139(1)

Pronouncement 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These 03 appeals by the Revenue are arising out of the respective orders of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19. Since common issues have been involved in all these appeals, except the difference in figures

DCIT, Delhi vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6176/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 139(1)

Pronouncement 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These 03 appeals by the Revenue are arising out of the respective orders of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19. Since common issues have been involved in all these appeals, except the difference in figures

DCIT, Delhi vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, Delhi

In the result, all the 03 appeals filed by the Revenue stand dismissed

ITA 6175/DEL/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 115JSection 139(1)

Pronouncement 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: These 03 appeals by the Revenue are arising out of the respective orders of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2016-17 to 2018-19. Since common issues have been involved in all these appeals, except the difference in figures

DCIT, Delhi vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Limited, Delhi

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 6174/DEL/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmandcit, Vs. Noida Toll Bridge Company Ltd., Room No. 419, C.R. Building, Toll Plaza, Dnd Flyway, Ip Estate, New Delhi Mayur Vihar Link Road, Delhi – 110 091 (Pan: Aaacn3498A)

For Appellant: Sh. Mahesh Kumar, CIT(DR)For Respondent: None
Section 143(3)Section 80Section 80I

Date of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of the Ld. NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10412038 dated 04.07.2025. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle 2, Noida for the assessment year

H.L. Malhotra Amd Company Private Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle 12(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3405/DEL/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2010-11
Section 143(3)Section 24

ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP 1. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No.CIT(A), Delhi-16/10189/2013-14 dated 26th March, 2025. Assessment was framed by the DCIT, Circle-12(1), New Delhi for the assessment year ... this, the assessee has raised following ground No.1(a) and 1(b):- “1(a) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld.CIT(NFAC), Delhi has erred in sustaining the disallowance of ₹36,00,000/- claimed by the assessee under Section 24(a) of the Income

Ajit Singh, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 35(5), Delhi

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

ITA 2691/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. S.Rifaur Rahman & Sh. Sudhir Kumar**

Section 147Section 148Section 250

Pronouncement: | 13/03/2026 | #### **ORDER** ## **PER SUDHIR KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:** This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi [hereinafter referred to as "Ld. NFAC)"] vide order dated 21-03-2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2018-19 arising out the assessment order dated ... added Rs.2,73,746/- as unexplained income. - 3. Aggrieved the order of the ld. AO the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. NFAC who vide his order dated 21- 03-2025 dismissed the appeal. Being aggrieved the order of the Ld. NFAC the assessee is in appeal before

Ms. Bestech Hospitalities Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Faridabad

ITA 3796/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh, Accontant Member Assessment Year 2011-12 Ms. Bestech Hospitalities Vs. Dcit Pvt. Ltd. Faridabad Unit No.5D, 5Th Floor, Aria, Signature Offices, Jw Marrior Hotel, New Delhi -110037 Pan No.Aaccb2540F Appellant Respondent Appellant Sh. R. S. Ahuja, Ca Sh. Push Deep Singh, Advocate Respondent Smt. Kranti, Cit Dr

Section 132Section 132(1)Section 153ASection 68

assessee is in appeal raising following grounds; “1. (A)That on the facts & circumstances of the case the Assessing Officer and CIT(A) NFAC Delhi, while passing the order U/s 250 erred in: 2. a. The Assessing Officer and CIT (A) erred in not recognizing the fact that Assessing Officer

Vaneet Aggarwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2607/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Vimal Kumar

Section 10(38)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 69ASection 69C

ITA No. 2607/Del/2019 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F': NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT

The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi Ufj, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 3(1)(1), International Taxation, New Delhi

ITA 7212/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Vikas Awasthy & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144C(5)Section 44C

ITA No.- 7212/Del/2017 The Bank of Tokyo Mitsubishi UFJ Ltd. IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, D: NEW

Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Roorkee

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 41/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

ORDER PER BENCH The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the orders, both dated 24.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against the assessment order dated 22.08.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Kunwar Pranav Singh Champion, Roorkee vs. Income Tax Officer, Roorkee

In the result, the captioned appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 40/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 271ASection 68

ORDER PER BENCH The captioned appeals are filed by assessee against the orders, both dated 24.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against the assessment order dated 22.08.2022 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s

Pramod Kumar, Kurdi, Manglour vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Dehradun

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

ITA 4/DDN/2026[2022 2023]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Pramod Kumar Vs Cit Appeal Kurdi Manglour, Manglaur, Karanpur Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Awopk3370R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Nidhi Saini, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 23.03.2024 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Found From Record That This Appeal Is Dismissed By Ld. Cit(A) As The Same Was Filed Delayed. The Claim Of The Assessee Is That Assessment Order Was Physically Served On 13.09.2024 & The Appeal Was Filed On 21.01.2024 Therefore, There Was No Delay In Filing The Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) Who Has Not Appreciated These Facts. We Condoned The Delay If Any, In Filing First Appeal Before Ld. Cit(A) & Restore The Matter To Ao As The Assessment Order Is Also Passed U/S 144 Of The Act. The Assessee Is Directed To File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Claim Made. Ao Is Directed To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh After Considering The Submissions Filed By The Assessee. With These Directions, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 144Section 250

Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER PER BENCH The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 26.12.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 23.03.2024 passed u/s 144 r.w.s

Prashant Malik, Delhi vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 35/DDN/2026[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Prashant Malik Vs Cit(A), R-21, Greater Kailash-1, Dehradun New Delhi Uttarakhand Pan-Arcpm3310Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Parshant Malik, Ar & Shri Deependra Kumar, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.11.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.288/2013-14 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Order Dated 18.03.2021 Passed U/S 263 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. The Present Appeal Is Filed Against The Order Passed U/S 144/263 Of The Act. During The Course Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Order Of Co-Ordinate Bench Of Tribunal In Ita No.35/Ddn/2022 Vide Order Dated 01.02.2024 Wherein The Co-Ordinate Bench Has Quashed The Order Passed U/S 263 Of The Act By Ld. Pcit. However, Ld. Cit(A) Despite All These Facts, Has Confirmed The Order Passed By The Ao U/S 144/263 Of The Act.

Section 144Section 250Section 263

Pronouncement 12.03.2026 ORDER PER BENCH The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 27.11.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.288/2013-14 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against the order dated 18.03.2021 passed

Anish, Mohalla Quila, Landhoura vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeal), Subhash Road, Irigation Colony, Karanpur

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

ITA 30/DDN/2026[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Anish Vs Cit (Appeal) Ward No.3, Mohalla Quila, Karanpur Landhoura, Roorkee Uttarakhand Uttarakhand Pan-Aocpa4876N Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 04.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 18.03.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Taken For Hearing In The Absence Of The Ld.Ar & On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. On The Other Hand, Ld. Sr. Dr Vehemently Supported The Orders Of The Lower Authorities.

Section 147Section 250

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 04.12.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 18.03.2023 passed u/s 147 r.w.s

B R Morden School, Pauri vs. I T O, Exemption Ward, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 28/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] B.R. Morden School Samiti Vs Ito Tara Lodge, Exemption, Ward Tehsil Road Pauri, Pauri, Dehradun Uttarakhand-246001. Pan-Aacab6988M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Rajiv Sahni, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 05.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Against The Penalty Order Dated 21.09.2022 Passed U/S 271B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both Parties & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Stated By Ld. Ar That The Quantum Appeal Filed By The Assessee For The Captioned Assessment Year Against The Assessment Order Passed Has Already Been Restored To The File Of Ao By The Tribunal For Passing For Denovo Assessment. Thus, The Current Penalty Proceedings Initiated In The Said Order Has No Legs To Stand. Accordingly, We Delete The Penalty So Levied. The Ao Is At Liberty To Initiate The Proceedings, If The Circumstances Suggests So, In The Set Aside Proceedings In Accordance With Law. With These Directions, Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed.

Section 250Section 271B

MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 05.12.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] against the penalty order dated 21.09.2022 passed u/s 271B

Soban Singh, Dehradun, Uttrakhand vs. DCIT Circle 1(1)(1), Dehradun, Uttrakhand

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 26/DDN/2026[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun12 Mar 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2022-23] Soban Singh, Vs Dcit Anand Nagar, Balawala Circle-1(1)(1) Dehradun, Uttarakhand Dehradun Pan-Djfps8212B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Abhinav Vijh, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 10.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 12.03.2026 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 03.12.2025 By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.Nfac/2021-22/10363960 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 25.03.2024 Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2022-23. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. From The Perusal Of The Table Reproduced At Page 12 Of Ld. Cit(A)’S Order Containing The Party-Wise Details Of Rent Paid During The Previous Year, It Is Observed That Assessee Had Paid Rent To Total Six Parties In Cash Every Month & The Payment Made To Each Individual Owner Was Below The Maximum Limit Prescribed U/S 40A(3) Of The Act Of Inr 10,000/-. The Ao Has Wrongly Considered The Gross Amount Of Rent Paid To All The Landlords As In Violation Of Provision Of Section 40A(3) Of The Act. Since The Rent Paid To Each Individual Land Owner Was Below Inr 10,000/- On Each Occasion, Therefore, Provision Of Section 40A(3) Are Not Applicable. Accordingly, No Disallowance Is Required To Be Made U/S 40A(3) Of The Act. In The Light Of Above Facts, We Delete The Disallowance Made By The Ao. All The Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Are Allowed.

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40A(3)

ORDER PER MANISH AGARWAL, AM : The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 03.12.2025 by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.NFAC/2021-22/10363960 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated