“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

Vallbhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, at.Bankodi, Tal.Jamkalyanpur vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in above terms

ITA 286/RJT/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 286/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vallabhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, Vs. The Cit(A), Bankodi, Jam Kalyanpur, National Faceless Appeal Centre Dist: Devbhoomi, Dwarka-361315 (Nfac), Delhi – 110003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ajgpg9688P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

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

286/RJT/2025 (Assessment Year: 2020-21) Vallabhbhai Nebhabhai Gojiya, Vs. The CIT(A), Bankodi, Jam Kalyanpur, National Faceless Appeal Centre Dist: Devbhoomi, Dwarka-361315 (NFAC), Delhi – 110003 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AJGPG9688P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) "नधा"रतीक"ओरसे/Assessee by : Shri Mahesh Paun, Ld. AR राज"वक"ओरसे/Revenue ... present appeal has been filed by the Assessee, against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal, Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “CIT(A)”] dated 12.02.2025 arising in the matter of assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) of the Income

Valour Autopack, Gor Khijadiya, Morbi Gujarat vs. The Pr. CIT 1 Rajkot, Rajkot

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 271/RJT/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

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

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Vora, ld.ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanja Punglia, Ld. CIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 269S

तिलिप अ"ेिषत/ Copy of the order forwarded to :  अपीलाथ"/ The Appellant  ""यथ"/ The Respondent  आयकर आयु"/ CIT  आयकर आयु"(अपील)/ The CIT(A)/(NFAC), Delhi.  िवभागीय "ितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय आिधकरण, राजकोट/ DR, ITAT, RAJKOT  गाड"फाईल/ Guard File By order/आदेशसे

Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar, Mangrol vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Junagadh

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 217/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Sainiआयकरअपील सं. /Ita No.217/Rjt/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2010-11 बनाम/ Vipul Arjanbhai Parmar Income Tax Officer Vs C/O. Sarda & Sarda (Ca), Sakar, Ward – 1, Junagadh 1St Floor, Dr. Radha-Krishnan Road, Opp. Rajkumar College, Rajkot, Gujarat - 360001 "ायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Ditpp9286B (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""थ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250

against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) (‘CIT(A)’), dated 16.12.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by Assessing Officer

Ajaykumar Natwarlal Sheth, Rajkot vs. The DCIT, Circle 1(2) Rajkot, Rajkot

ITA 108/RJT/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2010-11

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), dated 18.12.2024, which in turn arises out of an order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) r.w.s ... total loss shifted out by changes made in 38 Client Code Modification Entries. 5. Without prejudice to the above, that the learned CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has grievously erred in law and on facts in passing the appellate order violating the principles of natural justice. 6. That the appellant craves

M/S. Kalyan Tiles, at: - Charadava, Morbi-Halvad High-Way, Tal.: - & Dist. : - Morbi-363330 vs. The ITO Ward-3, Morbi

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

ITA 2/RJT/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 31.10.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/ Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld.CIT(A)’] which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer

Shri Shyam Construction Company, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 910/JPR/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Atharv Mundra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 40

present appeals have been filed by the assessee for different assessment years and are against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”), confirming the levy of penalty u/s. 270A

Shri Shyam Construction Company, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 1(1), Jaipur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 909/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Atharv Mundra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 145(3)Section 250Section 270Section 270ASection 40

Damodar Prasad Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-3(5), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1204/JPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SMT.ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P.C. Parwal, FCAFor Respondent: Sh. Brij Lal Meena, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (ld. CIT(A))/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. At the outset itself, it was stated that ... Aggrieved by the above, the assessee has come up in appeal before us raising the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.81

Kanhaiya Lal Hari Narayan, Neem Ka Thana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward Neem Ka Thana, Neem Ka Thana

The appeal of the assessee is allowed in above terms

ITA 1034/JPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SMT. ANNAPURNA GUPTA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Vedant Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary

Section 144Section 147Section 250

ORDER PER: ANNAPURNA GUPTA, AM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as “Act”). 2. The grounds raised by the assessee read as under

Ashish Kumar, Shravasti vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 736/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ashish Kumar V. The Ito-1 S/O Onkar Nath, Bardehra Bahraich Bharigan, Pathpur, Ekauna Shravasti (U.P) Tan/Pan:Deqpk8563B (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Raghunath Mishra, 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 31.01.2024, 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 His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.11,50,000/- In His Bank Account No.4666020000005 Maintained With Bank Of Baroda, Bahraich, During The Demonetization Period. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Issued Under

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

Section 115BSection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.01.2024, 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 his return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being a delay in filing of the appeal before the NFAC. 2.3 Now, the assessee

Bahbudi Fund Sanchalan Samiti, Kanpur vs. Income Tax Officer-, A

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

ITA 731/LKW/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2021-22 Bahbudi Fund Sanchalan Samiti V. The Ito-A Gt Road, Sarvodaya Nagar, Hns Nagar S.O Kanpur Nagar (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aadtb9409M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None 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 11.08.2025, Passed By The Addl/Jcit(A)-7, Delhi For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee-Samiti Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 31.03.2024 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.22,39,055/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore Processed The Return Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) & Vide Intimation/Order Dated 04.12.2024 Made Addition/Raised A Demand Of Rs.7,72,970/-.

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

Section 143(1)Section 249(3)Section 250

appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. 2.2 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the dismissal of its appeal by the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeals: 1. That the intimation order under section 143(1) of the Income No Tax Act 1961 was issued

Sayed Mohammad Azam Naqvi, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer, Range-4(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 643/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2017-18 Sayed Mohammad Azam Naqvi V. The Income Tax Officer E-2824, Rajaji Puram Range 4(4) Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Ahbpn4634P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.A. Respondent By: Smt. Sonal Singh, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rohit Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Smt. Sonal Singh, D.R

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.07.2025, 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 had not filed the return of income ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271AAC of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and filed additional evidence. However, the NFAC, without admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order

Narendra Singh Bisht, Gomtinagar vs. ACIT- 1, Lucknow-New, Lucknow

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

ITA 63/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Nikhil Choudharyआयकर अपील सं/ Ita No.63/Lkw/2025 ननिाारण वर्ा/ Assessment Year: 2017-18 Narendra Singh Bisht V. Acit-1, Lucknow New 123, Khargapur, Gomtinagar, Aayakar Bhawan, Ashok Malesemau, Uttar Pradesh- Marg, Lucknow-226001. 226010. Pan:Aljpb0987D अपीलार्थी/(Appellant) प्रत्यर्थी/(Respondent) अपीलार्थी कक और से/Appellant By: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.A. प्रत्यर्थी कक और से /Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) सुनवाई कक तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 04 11 2025 घोर्णा कक तारीख/ Date Of 30 12 2025 Pronouncement:

For Appellant: Shri Ashwani Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 282Section 68

VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 17.08.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Because the assessee was prevented

Faizul Haque, Hardoi vs. ITO-3(2), Hardoi

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

ITA 55/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI KUL BHARAT (Vice President), SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Parnav Pandey, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Amit Kumar, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69A

VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.11.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1 That

Mrs. Ranjana, Mrizapur vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 505/LKW/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mrs Ranjana V. The Assessing Officer Village Dewapur Pachwal Nafc Post Rajapur, Aamghat Mirzapur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aoxpr7130M (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Narendra Kumar Sahu, 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 31.03.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property Valued At Rs.60,00,000/- . The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice To The Assessee Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, The Assessee Neither Responded To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Nor Filed Any Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Assessing Officer (Ao)

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

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.03.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed her return of income for the year under consideration ... 271F of the Act, separately. 2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC), wherein the assessee furnished additional evidences, on which the NFAC sought Remand Report from the AO. The AO submitted his Remand Report dated 22.02.2025, based on which the NFAC deleted

M.K. Wood Trading Corporation, Lucknow vs. DCIT/ACIT-1, Lucknow

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

ITA 504/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 M. K. Wood Trading Corporation V. The Dcit/Acit-1 10, Basha Khera Lucknow New Takrohi, Indira Nagar Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aarfm2443G (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 07.08.2024, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Partnership Firm Engaged In The Business Of Timber Products. The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 10.12.2020 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.54,030/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Assessment And, Accordingly, The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Statutory Notices To The Assessee. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee. The Ao Finally Issued Show Cause Notice Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) Dated 21.3.2022, Vide Which The Ao

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

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 144BSection 68

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 07.08.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a partnership firm engaged in the business of timber products ... also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 271AAC of the Act, separately. 2.6 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.7 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal

Santosh Kumar Gupta, Lucknow vs. The Assessment Unit, NFAC, Delhi/ITO-1(4), Lucknow

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

ITA 498/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta V. The Assessment Unit (Nfac) 624 61, Chinhat Ito 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Ahspg3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Mahendra Kumar, Fca 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 29.05.2024, 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 Carrying On The Business Of Mobiles, Electrical & Electronic Goods. 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 Of Rs.15,60,000/- During The Demonetization Period (From 09.11.2016 To 31.12.2016) In His Four Different Bank Accounts Bearing A/C Nos.20050580560 & 31121736248, Maintained With State Bank Of India, Chinhat Branch, Lucknow, A/C No.1840210572, Maintained With Central Bank Of India

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

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 144Section 44ASection 69A

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Santosh Kumar Gupta v. The Assessment Unit (NFAC) 624 61, Chinhat ITO 1(4), Lucknow Faizabad Road Lucknow (U.P) TAN/PAN:AHSPG3013E (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant by: Shri Mahendra Kumar, FCA Respondent by: Shri R.R.N ... This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.05.2024, 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 carrying on the business of mobiles, electrical and electronic goods

Dharm Raj Kushwaha, Unnao vs. Income Tax Officer -2(4), Unnao

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

ITA 494/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharm Raj Kushwaha V. The Income Tax Officer 2(4) 172, Saipur Sarauda Unnao Safpur Unnao (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bmepk6477L (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: None 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 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was A Business Correspondent Of State Bank Of India & Ran A Customer Service Point (Csp). The Assessee Had Not Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Withdrawals Of Rs.1,36,10,616/- From The Current Account Maintained With The State Bank Of India, Received An Amount Of Rs.11,550/- As ‘Commission/Brokerage’ & ‘Insurance Commission’ During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under

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

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 194H

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2018-19. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was a Business Correspondent of State Bank of India ... also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.5 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and filed additional evidence. However, the NFAC, without admitting the additional evidence filed by the assessee, dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed

Harnek Singh, Shahjahanpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 492/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Harnek Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Jaswant Nagar Shahjahanpur Narotha Hansram Shahjahanpur Tan/Pan:Hdgps6958R (Applicant) (Respondent) Applicant By: Shri Dharmendra Kumar, 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 18.03.2025, 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 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 Totaling To Rs.10,56,500/- In His Following Bank Accounts During The Demonetization Period (9.11.2016 To 30.12.2016):

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

Section 10(1)Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144(1)Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 18.03.2025, 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 had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 271F of the Act, separately. 3.0 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. ITA No.492/LKW/2025 Page

Shubhanshu Agarwal, Bahraich vs. ITO-1, Bahraich

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

ITA 458/LKW/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow31 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2020-21 Shubhanshu Agarwal V. The Ito-1 C/O Shree Shyam Fertilizers Bahraich Shiv Nagar Bahraich (U/P) Tan/Pan:Bbhpa5931M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri B. P. Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri B. P. Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 144BSection 250

SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, J.M.: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.03.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the trading of building materials ... 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.82,10,518/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.2 Now, the assessee has approached