“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

Income Tax Office, Civic Center New Delhi vs. Shalini Chaudhary Sharma, India

ITA 958/DEL/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2009-10

Section 143(3)Section 148

instant Revenue’s appeal is directed against the order dated 01.02.2024 (DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060388071(1) passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the order dated 26.12.2016 passed by the ITO, Ward-52(2), New Delhi under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income

Income Tax Officer, New Delhi vs. Deepak Goel, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5760/DEL/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shrimahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shrisanjay Awasthiआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.5760/Del/2024 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year:2016-17 बनाम Income Tax Officer, Deepak Goel, Room No.1411, E-2, Block, Civic Centre, Vs. B-29, Vandana Apartment, Minto Road, New Delhi. Sector-13, Rohini, Delhi. Pan No.Afypg1033Q अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 10(38)Section 132Section 250Section 68

appeal arises from order dated 15.10.2024, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”), passed by Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, New Delhi. The main point of contention in this matter is that the assessee apparently traded in the shares of a penny stock company

Suman Sangwan, Gurgaon vs. Income Tax Officer, National Faceless Assessment Centre

Appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3497/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA (Judicial Member), SHRI MANISH AGARWAL (Accountant Member)

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘G’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH

Nidhi Rani, Panipat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-1, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3323/DEL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Smt. Nidhi Rani Vs Ito 1361, Sector-25, Part-Ii Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana-132103 Panipat Pan-Arrpr9400P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv. Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. & Shri Saksham Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Shyam Manohar Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 24.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2025 Order

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 250Section 68

present appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 30.10.2023 of Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10008516 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated

Shailesh Chandra Shukla, Etawah vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(5), Etawah

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

ITA 493/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahmanshailesh Chandra Shukla, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(2)(5), 192-C, Friends Colony, Etawah. Etawah – 206 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ahwps1502Q) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.12.2025 Date Of Order : 18.12.2025 O R D E R 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld. Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.08.2025 For Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. I Proceeded To Adjudicate The Issue With The Assistance Of Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Observed That That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order & Dismissed The Appeal. It Is Observed That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Decided The Issue Ex-Parte & Affirmed The Order Of The Assessing

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.08.2025 for Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. I proceeded to adjudicate the issue with the assistance

Brajesh Kumar Ahirwar, Jhansi vs. Income Tax Officer, Jhansi

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

ITA 491/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailender Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 144

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 21.11.2025 for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At the time of filing of appeal, the Registry has pointed out a defect that appeal is time barred

Pradeep Yadav, Agra vs. Ward 2(1)(2), Agra/

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

ITA 470/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14

Sarif, Jalesar Etah vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 464/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

assessee against the impugned orders dated 23.06.2025 & 24.06.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2013-14/10320101 and NFAC/2013-14/10320102 respectively by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2014-15. Ld. CIT(Appeals

Sarif, Jalesar, Etah vs. Assessin Officer, Ward-4(3)(1), Dinesh Nagar Etah

In the result, both the appeals ITA Nos

ITA 463/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Babu Lal, Mathura vs. The I.T.O. Ward 1(3)(1), Mathura

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

ITA 459/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 250

Bhoj Raj, Agra vs. Ward 1(1)(1), Agra

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 436/AGR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Agra18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: : Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 69A

pronouncement 18.12.2025 ORDER The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.07.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed its return of income ... addition of Rs.16,24,000/- as undisclosed money u/s. 69A of the Act. 3. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submission, which are more or less similar to the submissions made before the Assessing Officer. After considering the detailed submissions

Urusi Rahman, Kadma vs. ITO, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 257/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.257/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Urusi Rahman….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant 88 New Rani Kodar, Line No.4, Po Kadma, Jamshedpur, Jharkhand- 831005. [Pan: Amxpr0867K] Vs. Ito, Jsr…..……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 27.05.2025 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Did Not File Any Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2017–18. Subsequently, The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 On The Basis Of Information Received By The Assessing Officer That The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Declared Consideration Of ₹10,00,000, Whereas The Value Adopted For Stamp Duty Purposes Was ₹25,75,000. It Was Alleged That The Provisions Of Section 56(2)(Vii)(B) Of The Act Were Applicable. Accordingly, Notice Under Section 133(6) Was Issued Calling Upon The Assessee To Explain The Reasons For Not Filing The Return Of Income & To Furnish Details Regarding The Purchase Of The Property. However, There Was No Compliance By The Assessee. Thereafter, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued After Obtaining The Requisite Prior Approval From The Competent Authority. During The Course

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 56(2)(vii)Section 69

order : December 18, 2025 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 27.05.2025 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Anil Kumar Mandal, Fatehpur, Sahibganj vs. ITO, Sahibganj

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

ITA 461/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.461/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2016-17 Anil Kumar Mandal.. …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Fathepur, Balapokhar Rajmahal, Jharkhand-816109. [Pan: Bkhpm1302H] Vs. Ito, Sahibganj……………….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri R R Mittal, Ca, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 11, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 23.10.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That, Based On Information Available With The Assessing Officer, It Was Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Amounting To ₹44,73,800 In A Savings Bank Account During The Relevant Assessment Year. On Account Of Such Cash Deposits, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 After Recording Reasons & Obtaining The Necessary Approval From The Competent Authority. Consequently, Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act Was Issued To The Assessee For Filing The Return Of Income. However, The Assessee Did Not File The Return Of Income Nor Complied With The Notices Issued Under Section 142(1) Of The Act. In The Absence Of Any Compliance, The Assessing Officer Completed The Assessment Ex Parte & Treated The Entire Cash Deposit Of ₹44,73,800 In The Savings Bank Account As

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

order : December 18, 2025 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 23.10.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Shankar Polmersetty, Bagbera Kitadih vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Jamshedpur

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

ITA 454/RAN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.454/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2018-19 Shankar Polmersetty.... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant H.No.12, Gel Church Mohlla, Gurudwara Road, Tatanagar, Ps Bagbera, Kitadih, Jharkhand- 831002. [Pan: Ajspp1582B] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(1), Jamshedpur.….....….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Shrawan Kr. Jha, Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Sumit Dasgupta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”) Dated 12.11.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessment In The Case Of The Assessee Was Completed By Making An Addition Of ₹12,21,500 Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Purchased A Flat For A Consideration Of ₹9,35,000, Whereas The Stamp Duty Value Adopted By The Stamp Valuation Authority Was ₹21,56,500. Accordingly, The Difference Was Treated As Income Under Section 56(2)(X) Of The Act. The Assessee Submitted That The Booking Of The Flat Was Made On 28.06.2010 & An Advance Payment Of ₹51,000 Was Made Through Account Payee Cheque On The Date Of Agreement. It Was Further Contended That The Property Is Situated In A Rural Area & The Stamp Duty Value As On The Date Of Agreement Was Much Lower Than

Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

order : December 18, 2025 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 “CIT(A)”) dated 12.11.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle, Jamshedpur vs. Kilburn Management Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 444/RAN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.444/Ran/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Acit, Jamshedpur…….... …………….…….…............................……….……Appellant Vs. Kilburn Management Services Pvt. Ltd..…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent 119, 4Th Floor, D Block, White House, Park Street, Kol-700016. [Pan: Aabck1160H] Appearances By: Shri Sumit Dasgupdta, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Akshay Ringasia, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 17, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 18, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal Filed By The Revenue Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dated 25.09.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”). 2. At The Time Of Hearing, The Ld. Dr Submitted That Although The Tax Effect Involved In The Present Appeal Is Below The Monetary Limit Prescribed Under Cbdt Circular No. 9 Of 2024, The Case Falls Under The Exception Clause Provided In The Circular And, Therefore, The Appeal Of The Revenue Deserves To Be Adjudicated On Merits. 3. Per Contra, The Ld. Ar For The Assessee Strongly Objected To The Said Submission & Contended That Cbdt Circular No. 9 Of 2024 Prescribes The Monetary Limit Of ₹60,00,000 For Filing Appeals Before The Tribunal & In The Present Case, The Tax Effect Is Only ₹15,74,009/-, Which Is Far Below The Prescribed Limit. Even, The Case Of The Present Assessee Does Not Fall Under Any Of The Exceptions Clause Enumerated In The Said

Section 145Section 147Section 250

order : December 18, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as “ld. CIT(A)”) dated 25.09.2024 passed under Section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Surjit Singh 29-D Guru Amar Dass Avenue Ajanala Road Amritsar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Amritsar Income Tax Office Aaykar Bhawan Maqbool Road Amritsar, Amritsar

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

ITA 409/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: Both the appeals are filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 26.11.2023 and 30.01.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, which has emanated from the penalty orders of the DCIT (NFAC) dated ... provisions of section 269SS of the Act, on both occasions, against which penalty u/s 271D has been imposed by the Additional CIT-Range NFAC), which was carried in appeal before the Ld. First appellate authority NFAC, and in absence of any representation or any response , before the first appellate authority

Surjit Singh 29-D Guru Mar Dass Avenue Ajnala Road Amritsar, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1) Amritsar Incoem Tax Office Aaykar Bhawan Maqbool Road Amritsar, Amritsar

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

ITA 408/ASR/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Amritsar18 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta

For Appellant: Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv

Section 250Section 269SSection 271D

Assam Valley Finance and Investment Pvt Ltd, Guwahati vs. D.C.I.T., Circle 1, Guwahati

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 75/GTY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati18 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Manomohan Das, Jm Assam Valley Finance & Dcit, Circle 1 Investment Pvt. Ltd. Aayakar Bhawan, Christian Basti, House No.1, Niligiri Path, G.S Road, Guwahati-781005, Vs. Zoo Road, Guwahati-781024 Assam (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabca6974B Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani, Dr Date Of Hearing: 12.11.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.12.2025 O R D E R Per Rajesh Kumar, Am:

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Santosh Kumar Karnani

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 151Section 151ASection 68

vide notification number 18/2022 on the e- assessment of income escaping assessment of income, 2022. The ld. AR submitted that notice issued by NFAC as well as consequent assessment framed is without jurisdiction as these provisions were notified on 29.03.2022, when the order itself was framed by the NFAC ... Considering the above facts and legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi is without jurisdiction and is hereby quashed. The appeal of the assessee is allowed.” 2.5. In our opinion, the notice issued by NFAC as well as consequent assessment framed

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 35/PAN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 034 & 035/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2014-15 Damodar Mangalji & Company Ltd. Damodar Niwas, 1St Floor, Mc Road, Panaji, Goa-403001. Pan : Aaacd6880G . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Jt./Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Range-1/Circle-1(1), Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr M Satish [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18/12/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Twin Appeals Of Assessee Instituted U/S 253(1) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’] Are Directed Against Separate Din & Order 1070138041(1) Dt. 08/11/2024 & 1070321994(1) Dt. 13/11/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Act By National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac/Cit(A)’] Which Sprang From Assessment Orders Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Anent To Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2014-15 [‘Ay’].

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)

behind non-prosecution of first appeals which were disposed-off ex-parte on merits (ii) seeking remand of cases to the file of Ld. NFAC. Subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 we have also perused affidavits and supporting material placed on record and considered the facts & former twin ... Mangalji & Company Ltd. Vs JCIT/ACIT ITA Nos.034 & 035/PAN/2025 AY: 2011-12 & 2014-15 circumstances, these twin appeals deserves remand to the file of Ld. NFAC for adjudication consequent to their admission (if any)?’ necessitated us to vouch twin issues conjointly viz; (i) sufficient cause behind non-prosecution of impugned appeals

Damodar Mangalji & Company Limited, Panaji vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 1, Panaji

Appeals stands DISMISSED

ITA 34/PAN/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji18 Dec 2025AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Adv Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr M Satish [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 253(1)Section 253(3)Section 37(1)Section 40(1)(i)