“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

Ashvira Industires LLP, Mumbai vs. DCIT-23 (1), Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals are allowed

ITA 1523/MUM/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Ryan SaldanhaFor Respondent: Shri Mehul Jain

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

These are two appeals filed by the Appellant/Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „the CIT(A)‟] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in appeal for the Assessment Year

M/S. Multiventure Hotesl Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO-10(2) (4), Mumbai

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

ITA 1520/MUM/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S Multiventure Vs. Ito – 10(2)(4) Hotels Pvt Ltd Room No. 213, 2Nd Shop No. 15, Anuradh Floor, Aayakar Society, Next To Fire Bhavan, Mk Road, Brigade, Sv Road, Irla Mumbai-400020 Bridge, Andheri (W), Mumbai – 400058. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafcm4179E Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 08.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 17.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 144 R.W.S.147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: M/S Multiventure Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai 1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Reopening Of The Assessment U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 Is Incorrect & Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Mr.Vishnu Agarwal.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 147Section 148

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 144 r.w.s.147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: M/s Multiventure Hotels Pvt Ltd, Mumbai

M/S Shagurn Constructions, Mumbai vs. ACIT (OSD), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 4177/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘SMC‘ BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE: SHRI M.BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER

Thiruvalaya Venugopal, Bangalore vs. Assistant Director Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 235/BANG/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: Smt.Mrinalini, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sr.Narayana K.R., Addl.CIT-DR

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

Chandra Poojari) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore; Dated : 08th June, 2022. Devadas G* Copy to : 1. The Appellant. 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi. 4. The Pr.CIT, Bangalore. 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru. 6. Guard File. Asst

O3 Capital Global Advisory Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 931/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore08 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri George George K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri G.S. Prashanth, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Priyadarshini Basaganni, D.R

ITA No.931/Bang/2018 O3 Capital Global Advisory Pvt. Ltd., Bangalore IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI

Suresh Seksaria, Mumbai vs. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 1578/MUM/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalsuresh Seksaria Vs. Cit(A) – Nfac 5Th Floor, Seksaria Delhi. Chambers, 139 Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aafps0078K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Shri Ameet Patel.Ar Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 16.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 147 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri Ameet Patel.ARFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69Section 69C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Suresh Seksaria Vs. CIT(A) – NFAC 5th floor, Seksaria Delhi. Chambers, 139 Nagindas Master Road, Fort, Mumbai – 400 001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAFPS0078K Appellant .. Respondent Appellant ... PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: I. PURCAHSE OF DIAMONDS FROM M/S KAILASH

Blues Innovations India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO-12(1)(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 1331/MUM/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalblues It Innovations Vs. Ito – 12(1)(3) India Pvt Ltd., Ab 145A, Aayakar B-101, Bhumi Enclave, Bhavan, Mahaveer Nagar, Mumbai -400020. Kandivali (W) Mumbai – 400067. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaccb4562D Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Pramod Nikalje.Dr Date Of Hearing 15.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 20.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(Nfac) Delhi Passed U/S 271(1)(C) & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pramod Nikalje.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) Delhi passed u/s 271(1)(c) and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. The Ld.CIT(A) erred in confirming the penalty

Mustafa Khaleel, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 698/BANG/2021[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Sri Rajeev Nulvi, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 96

CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 8.9.2021. The only issue in this appeal is with regard to the taxability of capital gain offered by assessee in its return of income on the acquisition of land

Sri Ningappa Managuli, Hutti vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Raichur

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

ITA 684/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore07 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojariassessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Sri Narendra Sharma, A.RFor Respondent: Sri Ganesh R. Ghale, A.R., Standing counsel for Revenue

Section 115BSection 68Section 69A

CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal by assessee directed against the order of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.11.2021 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The first ground for our consideration is with regard to sustaining addition of Rs.5,80,936/- as unexplained cash credits

Ygroo Digital Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ACIT, ACIT Circle 15(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 1786/MUM/2021[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jun 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyalygroo Digital P Ltd, Vs. Acit, Cicle – 15(2)(1) Him & Kays House # Room No. 357, 3Rd 1, Powai Vihar, Floor, Aayakar Mumbai – 400076 Bhavan, Mk Road Mumbai-400020. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aacct4903A Appellant .. Respondent Appellant By : Mr.Mukesh Maheswari.Ar Respondent By : Ms.Kavita Kaushik.Dr Date Of Hearing 07.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 13.06.2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Cit(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Passed U/S 143(3) R.W.S 254 & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Mr.Mukesh Maheswari.ARFor Respondent: Ms.Kavita Kaushik.DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 35D

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 254 and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts

Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 359/BANG/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

June, 2022. (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member Bengaluru, Dated: 2nd June, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru 6. Guard File By Order

Bhagwan Mahaveer Jain Charitable Trust, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, (CPC), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 358/BANG/2022[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 11(2)Section 143(1)

Kln Engineering Products Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-4(3)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 337/BANG/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jun 2022AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranm/S. Kln Engineering Dcit, Circle - 4(3)(1) Products Pvt. Ltd. Bengaluru F-56. Industrial Estate Vs. Rajajinagar Bengaluru 560044 Pan – Aaack6967D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Sachin Mehta,M Ca Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 02.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 02.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Sachin Mehta,m CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 143(1)

Baskaran, A.M. The assessee filed this appeal challenging the order dated 25.03.2022 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi and it relates to AY 2018-19. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in dismissing the appeal ... Bengaluru, Dated: 2nd June, 2022 3 M/s. KLN Engineering Products Pvt. Ltd. Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru 6. Guard File By Order

Lekha Pariksha Vibhag Karmchari Sahakari Patsanstha Ltd, Thane vs. CPC, Bangalore

In the result, we do not find any merit in the Writ Petition, the same is therefore dismissed

ITA 268/MUM/2022[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Jun 2022AY 2019-20

Bench: Us. We Find That The Said Delay Has Been Properly

Section 10BSection 139Section 139(1)Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 80ASection 80P

This appeal in ITA No.268/Mum/2022 for A.Y.2019-20 arises out of the order by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in appeal No.NFAC/2018-19/10017757 dated 02/12/2021 (ld. CIT(A) in short) against the order of assessment passed u/s.143(1) of the Income

Shri. Rajan Sharma, Bengaluru vs. The Income-Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(4), Bengaluru

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

ITA 101/BANG/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskarancol. Ranjan Sharma The Income Tax Officer 894, Jalvayu Towers Ward - 3(3)(4) Ngef Layout Vs. Bengaluru Sadananda Nagar Bengaluru 560038 Pan – Amlps1613G Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri K. Sheshadri, Ca Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 01.06.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri K. Sheshadri, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 69A

Baskaran, A.M. The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 27.12.2021 passed by the learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi and it relates to AY 2017-18. 2. The assessee is aggrieved by the decision of the learned CIT(A) in confirming the addition ... June, 2022. (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member Bengaluru, Dated: 1st June, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru 6. Guard File By Order

Prathamika Krushi Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Itagi, Haveri vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward- 5, Davanagere

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

ITA 593/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaranprathamika Krushi Pattina The Income Tax Officer - 5 Sahakari Sangha Niyamitha Itagi Shree Towers, Hadai Main Pkpssn Itagi Post, Itagi Vs. Road, Opp. Drr Hospital Ranebennur Taluk Davanagere 577002 Haveri 581115 Pan – Aabap8450D Appellant Respondent Appellant By: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale Standing Counsel For Revenue Date Of Hearing: 30.05.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 01.06.2022

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Nulvi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale

Section 115BSection 5Section 68

June, 2022. (B.R. Baskaran) Accountant Member Bengaluru, Dated: 1st June, 2022 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT 5. The DR, ITAT, Bengaluru 6. Guard File By Order

United Breweries Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-7(1)(1), Bengaluru

ITA 2569/BANG/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore01 Jun 2022AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan, Vice Preseident & Shri Padmavathy S

For Appellant: Shri K.R. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sumer Singh Meena, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 92Section 92B(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, VICE PRESEIDENT AND SHRI PADMAVATHY S, ACCOUNTANT

Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu India LLP (Sucessor of Delotte Touche Tohmatsu India Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai vs. ACIT -Cir 6(2) (1), Mumbai

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

ITA 9/MUM/2022[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.09/Mum/2022 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years: 2012-13) Deloitte Touche Tohmatsu बिधम/ Acit-Circle 6(2)(1) India Llp (Successor Of Room No.504, 5Th Floor, Vs. Delotte Touche Tohmatsu Aayakar Bhavan, India Pvt. Ltd.) Maharshi Karve Road, One International Centre, Churchgate, Mumbai- Tower-3, 32Nd Floor, 400020. Senapati Bapat Marg, Elphinstone Road (W), Mumbai-400013. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aalfd7157J (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Ketan Ved Revenue By: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (Dr) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 23/05/2022 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 09/05/2022 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) (Nfac), Delhi Dated 15.11.2021 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Outset, The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Drew Our Attention To The Fact That The First Appellate Authority (Nfac) Has Passed The Order Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee. According To The Ld. Ar, The Assessee Had Filed All The Documents Sought For By The Cit(A) As Well As Had Filed Application Dated 23.01.2019 For Admission Of Additional Evidences (Refer Page No. 5 To 8 Of The Paper Book) As Well As Copy Of Letter Dated 25.10.2021 Uploaded On Income Tax E- Filing Portal On 09.10.2021 In Response To The Notices Dated 01.10.2021 & 11.10.2021 Respectively (Page No. 1 To 4 Of The Paper Book)

For Appellant: Shri Ketan VedFor Respondent: Ms. R. M. Madhavi (DR)

Section 36(1)(iii)

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.11.2021 for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee drew our attention to the fact that the First ... Appellate Authority (NFAC) has passed the order without giving proper opportunity to the assessee. According to the Ld. AR, the assessee had filed all the documents sought for by the CIT(A) as well as had filed application dated 23.01.2019 for admission of additional evidences (refer page

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 82/MUM/2022[AY 2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri Amarjit Singhita Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/S Indigenous Bureau Vs. Cit(A) Of India (Formerly Known As Nfac, Delhi Investigation Bureau Of India) 164, 3Rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No: Aaafi1617H Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani

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

Nos.81 & 82/Mum/2022 AYs. 2018-19 & 2019-20 1 M/s Indigenous Bureau of India. Vs. CIT(A) NFAC IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI AMARJIT SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA Nos. 81 & 82 /Mum/2022 (A.Ys. 2018-19 & 2019-20) M/s Indigenous Bureau ... India (Formerly Known as NFAC, Delhi Investigation Bureau of India) 164, 3rd Floor, Zaveri Chambers, Modi Street, Fort, Mumbai – 400001 स्थायी लेखा सं./ जीआइआर सं./ PAN/GIR No: AAAFI1617H Appellant .. Respondent Appellant by : N. B. Gandhi Respondent by : R.A. Dhyani Date of Hearing 31.05.2022 Date of Pronouncement 31.05.2022 आदेश

M/S. Indigenous Bureau of India, Mumbai vs. CIT (A) NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 81/MUM/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai31 May 2022AY 2018-19

For Appellant: N. B. GandhiFor Respondent: R.A. Dhyani

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