“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

Mahanth Motors, Davangere vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1445/BANG/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Vice – & Shri Soundararajan K.

For Appellant: Shri Ravishankar S.V., AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S, JCIT-DR

Section 143(1)Section 234

Date of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 ORDER PER SOUNDARARAJAN K., JUDICIAL MEMBER These appeals are filed by the assessee challenging the orders of NFAC, Delhi dated 27/03/2025 and 31/03/2025 in respect of the A.Ys. 2014-15 and 2015-16 respectively. 2. Both these appeals are related to the same assessee

Crisil Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle 15(1)(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6600/MUM/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2022-23 Crisil Limited, Deputy Commissioner Of Lightbridge It Park, Income Tax, Crisil Limited, Vs. Circle-15(1)(2), Saki Vihar Road, Aayakar Bhavan, Andheri East, M.K.Road, Mumbai-400072. Mumbai-400020. Pan : Aaact3151E (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol Mahajan For Revenue : Shri Satya Pal Kumar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 09-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12-12-2025 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [„Ld.Cit(A)‟], Dated 14-08-2025, Pertaining To Assessment Year (Ay) 2022-23. 2. Briefly Stated, Facts Of The Case Are That Assessment In This Case Was Completed U/S. 143(3) R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 („The Act‟), Vide Order Dt. 27-02-2025. The Assessee Thereafter Carried The Matter In 2 Appeal Before The Ld.Cit(A), Who Has Since Dismissed The Appeal & Against The Said Order, The Assessee Is In Appeal Before Us.

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna/Amol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Satya Pal Kumar, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], dated 14-08-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2022-23. 2. Briefly stated, facts of the case are that assessment in this

Hemchand Chintaman Patil, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Naupada, Teen Haath Naka, Thane (W)

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6357/MUM/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Brijesh VyasFor Respondent: Shri Akhtar H. Ansari

Section 147Section 249(2)Section 249(3)

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 07/08/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 22/12/2017, passed under ... remained unaware of the appeal deadline until engaging a new tax consultant in June 2025.  The initial appeal filed on 02/07/2025 was rejected by NFAC due to inadvertent procedural lapses (e.g., failure to upload condonation letter correctly), leading to a procedural delay of 16 days (from 02/07/2025 to 19/07/2025

Piva Soap Limited, Mumbai vs. Ward 7(3)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6356/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Amit Jhaveri &For Respondent: Shri Rajiv Kadam

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234A

Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “GOA No.1 Opportunity of Hearing: Assessment Year 2012-2013  The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC not given proper opportunity of hearing before dismissing the said appeal.  The said appeal was filed on 21/01/2020 vide Form 35 bearing acknowledgment no 293909031210120.  No physical notices have

Techno Residency Co Operative Housing Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai

Appeal is allowed

ITA 5742/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi & Ms. Vinita NaraFor Respondent: Shri Hemanshu Joshi

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 234ASection 249Section 271(1)(b)Section 69ASection 80P

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 17/07/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 07/03/2024, passed under Section ... without jurisdiction as the jurisdictional requirement of section 147 to 151A of the Act. 3. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, failed to condone of delay in filing the appeal on the ground that there was no sufficient cause shown by the appellant as per the provisions of section 249 r.w.s

Gautam Gajabhai Kanjia, Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit Income Tax Department, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 7712/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Tapan Sanghvi, AR [Virtual]For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Hearing : 05.12.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 05.12.2025 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, New Delhi dated 25.11.2025 pertaining to A.Y. 2019-20. ITA No. 7712/DEL/2025 [A.Y. 2019-20] Gautam Gajabhai Kanjia Vs. The Assessment Unit

Ramniwas Sharma, Delhi vs. DCIT Circle 2(1), Gaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5066/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 69A

This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter 1 Ram Niwas Sharma referred ... procedure of law, hence entire assessment is liable to be quashed. 2. That in facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred in law in not granting proper opportunity of being heard due to improper service of communication u/s 250 of IT Act, 1961 which

Blue Breeze Trading LLP, Dlehi vs. DCIT Central Circle -27, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed in above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5056/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 153CSection 250Section 69

East End Apartments Cghs Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 60(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is accordingly allowed as above terms for statistical purposes

ITA 5054/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S. Rifaur Rahman & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhan

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148ASection 249(3)Section 250

This appeal is filed by the assessee /appellant against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) / National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as the “CIT(A)”], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter 1 East and Apartment CGHS Ltd. referred ... received and no response was filed by the assessee. Subsequently, the statutory notice under section 142(1) of the Act were issued by the NFAC and for the above reasons assessee/appellant was not aware of the ongoing proceedings. 2 East and Apartment CGHS Ltd. Subsequently, the NFAC issued the show

Sas Fashions P. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-22(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of assessee in ITA No

ITA 4933/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri K. Sampath, Adv [Virtual]For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)(a)Section 274

Date of Hearing : 27.11.2025 Date of Pronouncement : 12.12.2025 PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, AM :- This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 20.08.2024 pertaining to A.Y 2018-19. 2. The ld. counsel for the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay ... admit the appeal. 4. The solitary grievance raised by the assessee is against the confirmation of penalty imposed by the assessment unit of the NFAC u/s 270A of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act, for short]. 5. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment proceedings

Haldiram Snacks Private Limited, Haryana vs. PCIT (Central), Delhi-3, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3371/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Haldiram Snacks Pvt. Ltd. Vs Pr. Cit (Central), Village- Kherki Daula, Delhi Delhi-3, Room No. Jaipur Highway Basai Road, 325, 3Rd Floor, Gurgaon, Haryana-122001. Jhandewalan Extn. Pan-Aaach0061R New Delhi-110055 Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Ajay Wadhwa, Adv., Shri Deepanshu Kaushik, Adv & Ms. Ragani Handa, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 148ASection 14ASection 153CSection 153DSection 263

153C of the Act determining income of Rs. 6,71,48,270/-. The assessee had preferred an appeal before National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) and the same is pending. Pending this appeal, the ld PCIT sought to revise the order passed by the ld AO dated 31.03.2022 by treating

Tarun Kumar Sahay(HUF), Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3370/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Tarun Kumar Sahay (Huf) Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 171, First Floor, Cycle Market, Delhi-3 Jhandewalan Extn., Delhi-110055. Pan-Aacht1105P Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12 .12.2025

Section 132Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263

Alka Agarwal, Delhi vs. PCIT(Central)-3, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3369/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2015-16] Alka Agarwal Vs Pr. Cit (Central), 56, Sfs Flats, Ashok Vihar, Delhi-3 Phase-Iv, Delhi-110052. Pan-Aajpa1281C Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sumit Lalchandani, Adv. & Shri Shivam Yadav, Adv. Respondent By Ms. Sita Srivastava, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 23.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 139(1)Section 148Section 153CSection 153DSection 263Section 69Section 69A

Vinod Kumar Goyal, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2354/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C. N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganeshvinod Kumar Goyal, Vs. Nfac, 231, Sector-11D, Assessment Unit, Delhi Faridabad 121 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Acgpg7686J Assessee By : None Revenue By: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/12/2025

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 69C

APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “A”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C. N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Vinod Kumar Goyal, Vs. NFAC, 231, SectoR-11d, Assessment Unit, Delhi Faridabad 121 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) PAN:ACGPG7686J Assessee by : None Revenue by: Shri Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. DR Date ... appeal in ITA No.2354/Del/2025 for AY 2021-22, arises out of the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024- 25/1074228293(1) dated 08.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 144B

Jasmina Trust, Delhi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2117/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwaljasmina Trust, Dy. Cit, B-60/61, C/O Bajaj Auto Circle-49(1), Limited, Nairaina Vs. New Delhi. Industrial Area, Phase-Ii, New Delhi-110028. Pan-Aaatj0296K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10(34)Section 115BSection 12ASection 143(3)Section 250Section 57Section 57(1)

AGARWAL, AM: This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (‘the CIT(A)’ in short) dated 30.01.2025 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (the Act, in short) in Appeal

Surender Singh Sangwan, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-4, Sonipat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1639/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2016-17] Surender Singh Sangwan Vs Ito C/O-Kapil Goel, Advocate Ward-4, Aayakar F-26/124, Sector-7 Bhawan, Sonepat, Rohini, Delhi-110085 Haryana Pan-Bqsps5616M Appellant Respondent Appellant By Dr. Kapil Goel Respondent By Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am : The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“Nfac”), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No. Cit(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 27.12.2018 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That Assessee E-Filed His Return Of Income, Declaring Total Income At Inr 7,00,190/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny Through Cass & Notice U/S 143(2) Was Issued To The Assessee On 07.07.2017 & Duly Served Upon The Assessee. Thereafter, Notices U/S 142(1) Of The Act Alongwith Questionnaire Were Issued On 25.04.2018. In Response Assessee Has Filed Reply Which Were Considered By The Ao & The Assessment Order Was Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Dated 27.12.2018 Wherein The Total Income Stood Assessed At Inr 1,12,94,400/- By Making Addition U/S 68 Of The Act Towards Unsecured Loans Of Inr 1,05,00,000/- Received During The Year Under Appeal. Besides Disallowance Of Rs. 94,210/- Out Of Various Expenses Claimed Is Also Made.

Section 131Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 06.12.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. CIT(A), Rohtak/10489/2018-19 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated

Mr. Bhagwan Das, Sambhal vs. ITO -2(5), Chandausi

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

ITA 161/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2018-19] Mr. Bhagwan Das, Vs. Ito Vill. & Po Kaithal, Ward-2(5) Tehsil Chandausi Chandausi Distt. Sambhal -244412 Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Pan No. Dnqpd8313H Appellant Respondent Assessee By Sh. Mayank Patawari, Advocate Sh. Akash Ojha, Advocate Revenue By Sh. Ajay Kumar Arora, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 25.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘A’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI C.N. PRASAD, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

DCIT, Noida vs. Ankur Mittal, Greater Noida

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue as well as Assessee’s

ITA 1104/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sudhir Kumar & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 69ASection 69C

appeal and Assessee has filed the Cross Objection challenging the order dated 23-12-2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre Delhi (in short NFAC) passed assessment order dated 27-03-2023 of the Assessing Officer for A.Y. 2017-18 under the section 143(3) r.w.s 263 of the Income ... Rs.47,52,507/-and addition of Rs.95,050/- u/s 69C of the Act. The assessee has filed the appeal, which is pending before the NFAC. 4. The Ld. PCIT, Noida passed an order u/s 263 of the Act on 27-03-2022 by setting aside the initial assessment order passed

Bharti Telemedia Limited, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the Assessee are allowed and appeals of the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 624/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad & Shri M. Balaganesh

Section 35ASection 4

relevant year. Decision of the CIT(A): 12. Against the aforesaid assessment order, the assessee filed an appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC' or 'CIT(A)'] which was disposed off by the Ld.CIT(A) vide impugned order dated 27.08.2024, whereby the appeal of the assessee was partly allowed

Aslam, Khurja vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 5790/DEL/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2018-19] Mr. Aslam Vs Ito S/O-Mr. Rasheed Neac, Delhi H.No.117, Meerpur Khurja Bulandshahr Uttar Pradesh-203131. Pan-Anvpa6180D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Adjournment Request Rejected Respondent By Shri Jitender Singh, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 12.12.2025

Section 143(3)Section 250

present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 18.10.2024 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] in Appeal No. NFAC/2017-18/10086369 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 09.04.2021 passed