“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

Vishal Singh, Raipur vs. DCIT-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 634/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.634/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Vishal Singh 2Nd Floor, Navbharat Udyog Bhawan, Ring Road No.1, Telibandha, Raipur-492 006 Pan: Ajjps4000Q

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ रायपुर म"। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR BEFORE SHRI PARTHA

Sharda Devi Singh, Raipur vs. ITO, Mahasamund

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 632/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 632/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2011-12) Sharda Devi Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, W/O Shri Shailendra Singh, Aayakar Bhawan, K-8, Rajdhani Vihar, Saddu, Mahasamund- 493445, Raipur-492001, C.G. C.G. Pan: Clzps1287D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) : (""थ" / Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri R. B. Doshi, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 06.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. B. Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 69

Assessment Year (‘AY’) 2011-12 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.08.2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [‘CIT(A)’]. 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: - “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in deciding appeal without service of notice. Resultantly

Rajesh Kumar Tiwari, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-3(1), Raipur

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

ITA 631/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Raipur07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.631/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Rajesh Kumar Tiwari House No.8, Shiv Vatika, Near Anmol Super Bazar, Mahavir Nagar, Raipur-492 001 (C.G.) Pan: Akmpt2646R

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 250

Rs.1,42,91,452/- to the income of A.Y.2013-14. It is observed that the matter under appeal has already been adjudicated by the NFAC vide order dated 07.03.2024 vide (DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/AS/250/2023-24/1062163225(1). Therefore, no separate adjudication is required in this case. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as the issue

Chintan Dwarkadas Chotai, Junagadh vs. DCIT/ACIT Cir 1(1), RKT, Rajkot

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

ITA 636/RJT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot07 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 270ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DINESH MOHAN

Gopi Creation, Surat vs. I.T.O Ward 3(2)(2), Surat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 509/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year : 2016-17 Gopi Creation Income Tax Officer, Ward 301, Mohandeep Society, Ved बनाम/ 3(2)(2), V/S. Road, Dabholi Char Rasta, Surat - 395001 Katargam, Surat - 395004 Pan No.: Aahfg 7219 G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 07/01/2026 आदेश/O R D E R The Present Appeal Has 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”).

For Appellant: Shri Sapnesh Sheth, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 250

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. Grounds raised by the assessee read as under

Laxman Yadav, Fatehgarh Sahib vs. The Income Tax Officer, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 86/RAN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahaylaxman Yadav, I.T.O., C/O-Modern Steels Ltd., G.T. Road, Ward 2(1), Vs. Mandi, Gobindgarh, Jamshedpur. Fatehgarh Sahib-147203, Punjab. Pan No. Aanpy 5111 H Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10236082 dated 08/02/2025 for the A.Y. 2018-19. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.C. Marndi, Sr.DR appeared for the revenue

Ujjwal K Chowdhury, Dhanbad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Dhanbad

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

ITA 55/RAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Date of pronouncement 07/01/2026 ORDER PER: BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Id. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2019-20/10182982 dated 16/01/2025 for the Α.Υ. 2020-21. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee and Shri R.C. Marndi

Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 167/RAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri George Mathan, Jm & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.165 & 167/Ran/2025 (निि ारण वर्ा / Assessment Year :2013-2014 & 2014-2015) Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito Ward-1(1), Jamshedpur 1St Floor, Room No.9, Tiwary Bechar Complex, Main Rd. Bistupur, Jamshedpur-831001 स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. : Aabcc 3978 K (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्ाारिती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Surana, Ar राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 07/01/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 07/01/2026 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : These Two Appeals Are Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate Orders Passed By The Ld.Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Both Dated 31.03.2025 For The Assessment Year 2013-2014. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That For The Assessment Year 2013- 2014 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29/01/2016 & For The Assessment Year 2014-2015 The Original Assessment Came To Be Completed U/S.143(3) Of The Act On 29.12.2016. Notice U/S.148 Of The Act For A.Y.2013-2014 Came To Be Issued On 28.03.2018 & For A.Y.2014-2015 The Notice Was Issued On 24.06.2019. The Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To Reason Recorded To Reopening For The Assessment Year 2013-2014 At Pages 47 To 51 Of The Paper Book Which Reads As Follows:-

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 31.03.2025 for the assessment year 2013-2014. 2. It was submitted by the Ld.AR that for the assessment year 2013- 2014 the original assessment

Colen Chemical Pvt. Ltd., Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Jamshedpur

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 165/RAN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Surana, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ram Chandra Marndi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Grd Finance Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 478/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

BENCH 1. These are the appeals filed by the assessees against the separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi all dated 08/10/2024 for the A.Y. 2011-12 to 2013-14 and 2017-18 respectively. As all the issues in all these appeals relate to the common issues, therefore

Grd Finance Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 477/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Grd Finance Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 476/RAN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Grd Finance Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 475/RAN/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Grd Finance Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Ranchi, Income Tax Department, Central Revenue Building

In the result, all these appeals of the assessees are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 474/RAN/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahay

Akheto Yepthomi, Dimapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Dimapur

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 246/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

addition u/s 69A of the Act and penalty u/s 271B of the Act. The assessee filed separate appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) during the course of appellate proceedings, the assessee filed detailed written submissions in regard to addition u/s 69A of the Act. The Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC ... entire submissions deleted the addition of Rs. 3,40,73,344/- and confirmed the addition of Rs. 87,05,746/-. The Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) further in case of penalty levied u/s 271B of the Act was confirmed. 4. Aggrieved from the order of Ld. CIT(A)(NFAC) regarding confirmation

Akheto Yepthomi, Dimapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Dimapur

In the result, ITA No. 246/GTY/2025 is dismissed

ITA 245/GTY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati07 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.” 2.1 The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal In Ita No. 246/Gty/2025:

For Respondent: Santosh Kumar Karnani, Addl. CIT

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 271BSection 44ASection 69A

Nityanand, Sant Kabir Nagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Basti

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 470/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Nityanand V. The Income Tax Officer Vill. & Post Dhamaicha Basti Sant Kabir Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Agzpn3158R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Vikram Acharya, Aca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Teacher Employed With The Government Of U.P. & Earned Salary Income. The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits To The Tune Of Rs.2,16,55,000/- In His Bank Account No.144200101001330 Maintained With Corporation Bank During The Year Under Consideration & The Cash Deposited By The Assessee During The Demonetization Period, I.E. From 01.04.2015 To 31.302.016 Was Rs.15,05,000/-. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 06.03.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a teacher employed with the Government of U.P. and earned salary ... proceedings under sections 271(1)(c), 271(1)(b) and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

Dhirendra Pratap, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Ward-3(2), Hardoi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 467/LKW/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2011-12 Dhirendra Pratap V. The Income Tax Officer A-16/1052, Sector 15 Ward 3(2) Near Vasundhra Complex Hardoi Indira Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ayepp3148C (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.12.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 06.11.2018 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.1,75,750/-. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash To The Tune Of Rs.19,81,000/- In His Bank Account. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued A Query Letter Under Section 133(6) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) On 04.01.2018, Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Source Of Cash Deposits Along With Other Evidentiary Proof, In Response To Which The Assessee Filed Reply On 07.02.2018. Since

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 251Section 271(1)(c)

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 19.12.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2011-12. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed his return of income for the year under consideration ... also initiated penalty proceedings under section 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which set aside the order of the AO and restored the matter to the file of the AO for making a fresh assessment, vide order dated

Rakesh Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(5), Barabanki

The appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed

ITA 438/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Rakesh Kumar V. The Income Tax Officer Naka Paisar Ward 5(5) Deen Dayal Nagar Barabanki Barabanki (U.P) Tan/Pan:Awkpk2247F (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Rakesh Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.12.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Deposited Rs.11,40,000/- During The Demonetization Period, I.E., From 09.11.2016 To 30.12.2016 In His Bank Account No.752530110000014 Maintained With Bank Of India, Subeha Bazar, Haidergarh. Thereafter, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee, Requiring The Assessee To Explain The Source Of Cash Deposits In His Bank Account. Since There Was No Compliance From The Side Of The

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 249(4)Section 249(4)(b)Section 68

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.12.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un- admitted for the reasons that ‘(1) Tax on returned income not paid/particulars of payment not mentioned and (2) Form

Late Madan Lal Gupta Through Legal Heir Abhishek Gupta, Barabanki vs. ITO Ward 5(4), Barabanki-1, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 437/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow07 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Late Madan Lal Gupta V. Ito Through Legal Heir Ward 5(4) Abhishek Gupta Barabanki - 1 367, Qanoon Goyan Nawabganj, Barabanki U.P) Tan/Pan:Acepg5468Q (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Gaurav Gupta, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 25.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Retired Assistant Engineer In The U.P. Power Corporation, Drawing Pension. The Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 27.07.2017 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,78,310/- After Claiming A Deduction Under Chapter Vi-A, Amounting To Rs.1,50,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Limited Scrutiny Under The Computer Aided Scrutiny Selection (Cass) For The Reason Of ‘Cash Deposit During The Demonetization Period’. Accordingly, A Notice Under Section 143(2) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called

For Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 25.05.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a retired Assistant Engineer in the U.P. Power Corporation, drawing pension ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders