“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

Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Pune vs. ITO Ward 9 (3), Pune

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

ITA 1259/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1259/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Mr. Girish Kisandas Mehta, Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Pune. Mehta Niwas Bhairavnath Nagar, Kusgaon, Lonavala, Maval, Pune- 410401. Pan : Akepm3983A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani Revenue By Smt. N. C. Shilpa : Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.03.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Prevailing In The Case & As Per Provisions & Scheme Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 ('The Act') It Be Held That The Assessment Proceedings Initiated U/S 147 Of The Act Are Invalid Since The Requisite Approval/Sanction U/S 151(Ii) Of The Act Is Not Taken. Accordingly, The Assessment Proceedings So Initiated Be Kindly Annulled & Appellant Be Granted Just & Proper Relief In This Respect.

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh Kankani

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 2(14)Section 80C

held that the addition of Rs. 58,00,000/- so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is incorrect and not according to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the additions so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC ... held that the addition of Rs. 92,665/- so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is incorrect and not according to the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the additions so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC be kindly

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1221/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

BENCH: ITA No.1221/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 19.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. ITA No.1220/PUN/2025 filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 24.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment ... year 2015-16 wherein the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has confirmed the penalty levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). For the sake of convenience, both the appeals were heard together and are being disposed

Achanak Associates Realtors Pvt.Ltd, Pune vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Pune

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

ITA 1220/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Nitin Narayan Keskar, Pune vs. CIT (Appeals)-5, Pune

In the result, appeal is dismissed in totality

ITA 1000/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune29 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15 Nitin Naryan Keskar Ito, Ward-12(1), Pune 999-C/B-1, Sunderban Society, Vs. Navi Peth, Pune – 411030 Pan: Abxpk0862G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore Date Of Hearing : 18-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vidya Ratna Kishore

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 68

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 20.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2014-15. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order ... NFAC confirming the addition of Rs.1,70,64,449/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) on account of increase in capital. 3. None appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing. A perusal

Jamshed Alam, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle 32, Kolkata

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

ITA 2379/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishraआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2379/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-2019) Jamshed Alam, Vs Dcit, Circle-32, Kolkata 108, Park Street, Park Circus Kolkata, West Bengal-700017 Pan No. :Acupa 0330 M (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Sunil Surana, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Dr. Anup Biswas, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 29/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 29/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 10.10.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar That The Appeal Of The Assessee Has Been Dismissed By The Ld.Cit(A) On Account Of Delay Of 66 Days. In This Regard, Ld. Ar Drew Our Attention To The Judgment Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court In Miscellaneous Application No.21 Of 2022 In Suo Motu Writ Petition (C) No.3 Of 2020, Dated 10.01.2022, Wherein The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Has Directed To Exclude The Period Of Limitation For The Period As Mentioned In The Said Judgment On Account Of Covid-19. The Relevant Observations Of The Hon’Ble Supreme Court Are As Under :- 4. The Present Miscellaneous Application Has Been Filed By The Supreme Court Advocates-On-Record Association In The Context Of The Spread Of The New Variant Of The Covid-19 & The Drastic Surge In The Number Of Covid Cases Across The Country.

For Respondent: Dr. Anup Biswas, CIT-DR

Section 12ASection 138

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.10.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. It was submitted by the ld. AR that the appeal of the assessee has been dismissed

Islander Housing Project Private Limited, Teylarabad, Port Blair, South Andaman vs. ITO, Ward 3(4), Port Blair, Aaykar Bhawan, Vip Road

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

ITA 2237/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma (Judicial Member), Shri Rakesh Mishra (Accountant Member)

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250

order : December 29, 2025 आदेश / ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 31.07.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Rajib Dutta Gupta, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 62(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 2078/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Dutta Gupta. 2. The assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal: “1. For that the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law as well as on facts of the case by passing order u/s 250 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 22/05/2025

Sultania Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 5(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2057/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 148Section 149Section 250Section 69C

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... forwarded to: 1. Sultania Realtors Pvt. Ltd., 7, Rabindra Sarani, Dalhousie, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700001. 2. I.T.O., Ward 5(1), Kolkata. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Shreya Dey Sarkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs. I.T.O., Ward - 2(4), Raiganj, West Dinajpur

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

ITA 1649/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 250

Shreya Dey Sarkar, Flat No.401, Venkatesh Villa, Rupi Nagar, Phursungi, Pune, Maharashtra, 412308. 2. I.T.O., Ward-2(4), Raiganj. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Smt. Sneha Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma, Raiganj vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Raiganj

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

ITA 1085/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Dec 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 246ASection 250Section 69A

ORDER PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Brahma, Legal Representative of Late Shyamal Kumar Brahma, Debinagar, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur, West Bengal, 733129. 2. ITO, Ward-2(4), Raiganj. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvelraj Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3089/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

RAGHUNATHA, AM : These appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders dated 26.09.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment years (A.Y) 2019-20 & 2020-21 against the orders u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income ... u/s.148A(d) dated 25.03.2023 and 26.02.2024 respectively have been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai [JAO] and not by the NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We find that though the orders under Clause(d) to Section 148A of the Act dated

Paramasiva Naidu Muthuvelraj Educational Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward-3, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3088/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Shri. N.V.Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

Pooja Prabhakar, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 15(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3049/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

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

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69Section 69ASection 69C

dated 24.06.2025). 25. 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 is no prejudice caused to the assessee. 26. We have ... held in favour of the assessee and therefore, we are inclined not to go into the merits of the addition made by the NFAC. 13. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.” 39. In view of the foregoing discussion, we observe that the JAO passed an order

S.J. Sivagami, Madurai vs. ITO, Ncw-1(7), Madurai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 3006/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Ms. Vaibhavi & Ms. Eilakiya, AdvocatesFor Respondent: Shri. ARV Sreenivasan, C.I.T

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 68

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... failed to furnish the supporting documentary evidence to the tune of Rs.16,25,000/-. The assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of NFAC, Delhi dated 05.03.2025 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.16,25,000/- treated as unexplained credits u/s.68 of the Act. Aggrieved

Sankar Rudrasenan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-1, Namakkal

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

ITA 2895/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

These appeals of the assessee are filed against the separate orders of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘ld.CIT(A)’) for the assessment year 2012-13, vide both the orders dated 23.06.2025 against the assessment order passed by the AO, NFAC ... dated 23.12.2021. 4. Aggrieved by the orders of the Assessing Officer, the assessee filed two separate appeals before the ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi. The ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeals in limine without condoning the delay in filing the quantum appeal with a delay of 3 months and 2 days

Sankar Rudrasenan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Ward-2, Namakkal

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

ITA 2894/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Mr. T.S. Lakshmi Venkatraman, FCAFor Respondent: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Sivarajpandi Vasantha, Thirupalai, Madurai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Non Corp. Circle-1, Madurai, Income Tax Office

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2878/CHNY/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

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

For Appellant: Mr. T. Vasudevan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 139(5)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151ASection 57

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 09.09.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2020-21 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... supporting documents for consideration. On perusal of the reply and documents submitted by the assessee, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of NFAC, Delhi dated 07.11.2024 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.5,71,030/- by arriving total income of Rs.26

Arulmigu Chandra Mouleeswarar Temple, Villupuram vs. ITO, Ward-1, Villupuram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2860/CHNY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

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

For Appellant: Ms. R. Sumedha, Advocate for Ms. G. Vardini Karthick, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 13.08.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2019-20 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income ... copy of ITR filed on 02.02.2024 and relevant supporting documents. On perusal of the documents, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of NFAC, Delhi dated 29.02.2024 u/s.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.1,32,70,560/- by arriving total income

Ganapathi Kanagasabai, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Vellore

ITA 2856/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Ms. T. V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151A

RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 07.02.2025, passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “Id.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2018-19 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... income declaring total income of Rs.1,56,100/-. On perusal of the reply and documents, the assessment was completed by the Assessment Unit of NFAC, Delhi dated 25.02.2023 u/s.147 r.w.s 144B of the Act by making an addition of Rs.14,56,824/- and arrived a total income of Rs.16

Ungal Siva Valli Vilas, Puducherry vs. ITO, Ward-3, Puducherry

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

ITA 2844/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai29 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Mr. K. Ilaiyaraja, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 16.12.2025

Section 143(3)

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM. This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 10.01.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2017-18 against the order u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... u/s.143(3) of the Act dated 20.12.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 20.01.2020. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided seven opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed