“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

Kalpesh Deepak Fuldale, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 13(2), Pune

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

ITA 2627/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2627/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Kalpesh Deepak Fuldale, Vs. Ito, Ward-13(2), Pune. A/P Pargaon (S.M.), Tal- Daund, Dist- Pune- 412203. Pan : Arhpp1574G Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Smt. Deepa Khare Revenue By : Shri Manish Sinha Date Of Hearing : 22.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Ld Cit(A) Erred In Facts & On Law In Confirming Levy Of Penalty U/S 270A Under Reporting / Misreporting Of Income.

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha

Section 143(3)Section 270A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Virendra Vijaysingh Pardeshi, Nashik vs. Income Tax Office Ward 2(1) Nashik, Nashik

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

ITA 2620/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2620/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Virendra Vijaysingh Vs. Ito, Ward-2(1), Nashik. Pardeshi, Row House No.10, Swapnpurti Cooperative Housing Society, Kalptaru Nagar, Nashik- 422006. Pan : Anhpp9809L Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Rakesh Pardeshi Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 11.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Learned Cit-Appeals Erred In Upholding The Addition Of Rs.2500000 Made By The Assessing Officer U/S 69A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961, Merely For Non-Appearance Relying Solely On Procedural Default & Ignoring That Appellate Proceedings Are Continuation Of Assessment & Must Be Decided On Merits Based On Record & Written Submissions Already Filed.

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh PardeshiFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 139(4)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 271DSection 68Section 69A

alleged transaction with credible, independent evidence, relying only on self-serving, untested third-party material. 7. The order passed by the CIT(A), NFAC dated 11.09.2025 is bad in law and void ab initio as it has been passed ex parte without adjudicating on merits despite detailed grounds and statement

George Molakal Mathew, Pune vs. ITO International Tax Ward-3, Pune

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

ITA 2236/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: or during the hearing of the Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Kanchun Kaushal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194ASection 3

No.1: On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [CITIA), NFAC] has erred in setting aside the Assessment Order and referring the case back to the Ld. Assessing Officer for making a fresh assessment without adjudicating ... legal grounds (Ground Nos. 1, 2 and 3 raised by the Appellant). It is prayed that the Order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC be set- aside and the appeal be sent to the file of the Ld. Commissioner of 2 Income Tax Appeals-13, Pune [‘CIT(A) Pune

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2199/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.2198 & 2199/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Santosh Arun Kaspate, Vs. Dcit, Circle-8, Pune. Panchwati Niwas Kaspate Vasti, Wakad, Pune- 411027. Pan : Acypk3347C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Phade Date Of Hearing : 24.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 25.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2013-14 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, Therefore, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.2198/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Santosh Arun Kaspate, Pune vs. DCIT, Cir-8, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 2198/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Phade

Section 143(3)Section 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Processia Plm Private Limited, Pune vs. National Faceless Assessment Center, Delhi

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

ITA 2007/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2007/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Processia Plm Private Vs. Income Tax Department, Limited, National E-Assessment First Floor, Office No.102, Centre, Delhi. Amar Apex Building, Amar Apex Condominium, Baner, Pune-411045. Pan : Aaact6811H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Virtual) Revenue By : Shri Harshit Bari Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “Ground No. 1: On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Order Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act,1961 ('The Act') Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) ['Ld. Cit(A)'] On 12 June 2025 Is Bad In Law.

For Appellant: Ms. Nidhi Agarwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Harshit Bari

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 244ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Mr Bharat Datta Nakhava, Raigad vs. ITO WD-3, Panvel

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

ITA 1982/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Khandelwal (Virtual)For Respondent: Shri Manish Sinha (Virtual)

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 69A

appeal. 3. The appellant has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Officer at the Assessment Unit, Income-tax Department (hereinafter referred

Mrs. Uma Aarun Patil, Pune vs. Commissioner of Income Tax Appeals, Income Tax Department

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

ITA 1974/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

Section 24

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Shankar Ananda Padalkar, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 1(2), Solapur

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

ITA 1900/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1900/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shankar Ananda Padalkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(2), 416, Gr. Floor, Gala No.3, Solapur. Kuldaivat Gold Market, Solapur- 413002. Pan : Anwpp7661H Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri S. G. Bhutada & Shri V. D. Bhutada Revenue By : Shri Ganesh B. Budruk Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.06.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. Ground No. 1 The Learned Cit(A) Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of ₹50,20,000/- Under Section 69A Read With Section 115Bbe Of The Act, Without Properly Appreciating

For Appellant: Shri S. G. Bhutada &For Respondent: Shri Ganesh B. Budruk

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

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “B”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE

Shri Mahadev Tukaram Kanchan, Pune vs. ITO Ward-14(3), Pune

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

ITA 1674/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1674/PUN/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2014-15 | Shri Mahadev Tukaram Kanchan, 45, Mahadev Niwas, Parivartan Society, Ashram Road, Urali Kanchan, Pune-412202. PAN : AWXPK5330Q | Vs. | ITO, Ward-14(3), Pune. | | Appellant | | Respondent | Assessee by : Shri B. C. Malakar, Shri Yuvraj V. Bhandare Revenue by : Shri Bharat Andhale Date of hearing : 04.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 05.01.

For Appellant: Shri B. C. Malakar &For Respondent: Shri Bharat Andhale

Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, NFAC, Delhi erred dismissing the appeal of the appellant ignoring and without appreciating the facts that necessary and required submissions with documentary evidences were made by the appellant ... properly been considered while making such additions under various heads and further details and explanation submitted with documentary evidences before the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC which were also not duly addressed in the appellate order. The appellate order therefore so passed dismissing the appeal of the appellant and confirming such

Gauri Shivajirao Jadhav, Pune vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 9(1), Pune

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

ITA 1646/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1646/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Gauri Shivajirao Jadhav, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(1), Pune. Seva, 678, Nere Nr. Iims College, Jambe Mulshi, Pune- 411033. Pan : Bdppj8217B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Ajay Rander Revenue By : Shri Uodol Raj Singh Date Of Hearing : 13.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.01.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. There Is Delay In Filing Of The Present Appeal. We Are Satisfied With The Reasons Mentioned In The Application For Condonation Of Delay Duly Supported By An Affidavit That The Applicant Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause For Not Filing The Appeal Within The Prescribed Time Limit. After Hearing Ld. Dr, We Condone The Delay & Proceed To Adjudicate The Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ajay RanderFor Respondent: Shri Uodol Raj Singh

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148

raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Whether on the facts of the case and in law the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC was justified in dismissing the appeal of the appellant merely due to absence of sufficient cause in filing of the appeal, without going into

Goldmoon Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 6(2), Kolkata

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2086/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2026AY 2012-2013

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY (Judicial Member)

Section 131Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter referred to as “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)]. 2. The issue raised in Ground No. 1 is general in nature and does not require any specific adjudication

Masudha Begam, Perambalur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Trichy

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

ITA 3831/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri George George K & Before Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao

For Appellant: Mr.P.Venkatesan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms.Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 147Section 148

INTURI RAMA RAO, A.M : This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, [‘CIT(A)’ in short], Delhi, dated 31.10.2025 for AY-2015-16. 2.0 The appellant is an individual and no regular return of income for the AY-2015-16 filed by the appellant ... appeal before him. 4.0 Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. 5.0 The learned AR submits that the NFAC grossly erred in dismissing the appeal by holding that appeal is barred by limitation, in as much as, there was a sufficient reason for delay

Varadharajan Gurusamy, Ramanathapuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ramanathapuram

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

ITA 3015/CHNY/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. R. Tulsiram &For Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, CIT

Section 144Section 147Section 148

assessee. However, the assessee chose to be silent and did not respond to any of the notices and hence, the ld.CIT(A), NFAC dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by confirming the order of the AO by passing an order dated 06.03.2025. Aggrieved by the order of the ld.CIT

Ganesan, Nagapattinam vs. ITO, Ward-2, Nagapattinam

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

ITA 3011/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Manu Kumar Giri & Shri S. R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. J. Saravanan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 144Section 69A

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal of the assessee is filed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y.) 2017-18, vide order dated 31.07.2025. 2. At the outset, we observe that there is a delay ... total income of Rs.2,41,10,045/-. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC on 30.11.2019. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has not considered the additional evidence submitted by the assessee owing to the document

S Chandra Prakash, Chennai vs. ITO, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai

ITA 2815/CHNY/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.:2815/Chny/2025 & Sa No.105/Chny/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year: 2021-22 S.Chandra Prakash, No.13/5, Vritti Apartment, 2A, Ormes Road, 3Rd Cross Street, Kilpauk S.O, Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010. Ito, Vs. Central Circle – 3(2), Chennai. [Pan: Aaapc-4541-Q] (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) अपीलार्थी की ओर से/Appellant By : Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. प्रत्यर्थी की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. Cit. सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 आदेश /Order Per S. R. Raghunatha, Ам: This Appeal & Stay Application Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Chennai - 20 (In Short "Cit(A)") Passed U/S.250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (In Short "The Act") Dated 08.08.2025 Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Against The Order Passed By The Acit, Central Circle-3(2), Chennai, U/S.143(3) Of The Act Dated 30.12.2022. :-2-:

For Appellant: Mr. Y. Sridhar, F.C.AFor Respondent: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CIT

Section 131Section 132ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 69

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, 'सी' न्यायपीठ, चेन्नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 'C' BENCH, CHENNAI श्री एबी टी वर्की, न्यायिक

Aditya Vikram Podder Swetha Poddar, Tamil Nadu vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Tamil Nadu

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

ITA 2724/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Ss Viswanethra Raviassessment Years: 2017-18 Aditya Vikram Podder Swetha Poddar, Income Tax Officer, No.37, Vvc Layout Mtp Road, Ward-3(1), Coimbatore, Coimbatore. Tamil Nadu-641 002. [Pan: Aaqpa5491H] Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr.Amit Rai, Ca(Virtuallly) Revenue By : Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026 O R D E R Per Inturi Rama Rao, A.M :

For Appellant: Mr.Amit Rai, CA(Virtuallly)For Respondent: Ms.R.Anitha, Addl.CIT

Section 143(3)

specified bank notes during the demonetization period. On mere perusal of para 6 of the impugned order, it would be clear that the NFAC rejected the explanation of the appellant that the cash deposits were made out of opening cash balance of Rs.9,80,993/- by holding that the appellant ... failed to show the availability of cash balance by adducing necessary evidence. The NFAC also made certain unwarranted bald observations. The CIT(A) had not given sufficient and reasonable opportunity to explain the source of the cash deposits. In the circumstances, we are of the considered view that the matter

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Tirunelveli vs. Srinivasagam Selvamathan, Tuticorin

In the result, appeal filed by the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2654/CHNY/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey & Shri S.R.Raghunatha

For Appellant: Mr. SrinivasagamFor Respondent: Mr.Shiva Srinivas, CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151A

loss of assessee. Therefore, according to assessee, since the impugned notice u/s 148 dated 25.07.2022 has been issued by JAO and not by the NFAC, there is per-se contravention of the provisions of the Act, thus violating the principles of Rule of Law, which vitiates the reopening ... taxmann.com 1203 4. Per contra, the Ld.DR supported the action of the JAO issuing notice u/s.148 of the Act and submitted that both the NFAC & JAO have got concurrent jurisdiction and therefore, notice is valid and also submitted that there was no prejudice caused to the assessee. Therefore, he asserted

K.K. Press Tools and Components Pvt. Ltd., Sriperumbudur vs. ITO, Corporate Ward-4(3), Chennai

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

ITA 2642/CHNY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Aby T Varkey & Shri S.R. Raghunatha

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: 15.12.2025

Section 144

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 31.07.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2013-14 against the order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... order u/s.144 of the Act dated 24.03.2016. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 28.12.2016. 4. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided three opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed

Rohini, Theni vs. Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corporate Range 2, Madurai

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

ITA 2533/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 2533/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Ms. Rohini, The Additional 23D/13/19 Bharathiyar Nagar Vs. Commissioner Of Income North 4Th Street, Tax, Cumbum Lsg So, Non-Corporate Range 2, Theni – 625 516. Madurai Pan: Aetpr 1056A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri R. Venkata Raman, Ca ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Addl.Cit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05.01.2026 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 05.01.2026

For Appellant: Shri R. Venkata Raman, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam

Section 250Section 271D

This appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 10.07.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year