“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

Dhiraj Giridhar Maske, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1, Latur

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

ITA 2470/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

BENCH: The above batch of 5 appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders dated 11.09.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19. In ITA No.2473/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). In ITA No.2469/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in confirming the penalty of Rs.82,212/- levied by the Assessing Officer u/s 270A of the Act. In ITA No.2470/PUN/2025 the assessee has challenged

Dhiraj Giridhar Mhaske, Latur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Pune

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

ITA 2469/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

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

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 194CSection 206CSection 270ASection 271A

Sanket Kailas Pawar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 232/PUN/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1194/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Plot No.20, Sattyam Nagar, Aurangabad. Cidco No.7, Jalgaon Road, Aurangabad- 431010. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.232/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2019-20 Sanket Kailas Pawar, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(5), Rl-191, Krushnakunj Aurangabad. Banglow, G Block, Sambhaji Nagar, Chinchwad, Pune- 411019. Pan : Bugpp3328D Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Prateek Jha & Shri Prayag Jha Revenue By : Shri Amit Bobde Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: Both The Above Captioned Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Dated 30.03.2024 & 07.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Addl./Jcit(A)-2, Noida [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Respectively. 2. Since Identical Facts & Common Issues Are Involved In Both The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee, We Proceed To Dispose Of The Same By This Common Order. 3. First, We Shall Take Up The Appeal Of The Assessee In Ita No.232/Pun/2025 For Adjudication As The Lead Case.

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

Appeal during the course of appeal proceedings.” 5. The appellant has raised the following additional grounds of appeal :- “1. The Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi, erred in confirming the adjustment Rs.6,06,67,714/- made under section 143(1) of the IT Act ignoring the fact that this amount

Viki Vijay Balwadkar, Pune, Maharashtra vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(2), Pune, Maharashtra

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

ITA 2242/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 2242/Pun/2025 धििेंारण वर्ा /Assessment Year: 2015-16 Viki Vijay Balwadkar, Ito, Ward 2(2), Pune The Pearl, Sanjay Farm At Post Balewadi, Opposite Vs. Bharati Vidhypeeth, Haveli, Pune-411045 Maharashtra Pan-Asrpb2959G अपीलेंर्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Bhuvanesh KankaniFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi-Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 56(2)

आदीश /ORDER PER DR. MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :- This appeal at the instance of assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 dated 23.07.2025 which is arising out of assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s ... held that the addition of Rs. 20,50,500/- & Rs.43,78,000 so made by Ld. AO and that upheld by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is incorrect and not in accordance with the provisions of the Act. Accordingly, the addition so made be kindly deleted and appellant be granted just

Shri Gajanan Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Maryadit, Satara vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Kolhapur

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

ITA 2077/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2077/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2020-21 Shri Gajanan Nagari Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Sahakari Patsanstha Kolhapur. Maryadit, Malakpur, Tal- Karad, Dist.- Satara, Karad- 415110. Pan : Aabas8429B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vinod Pawar Date Of Hearing : 28.10.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 04.07.2025 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1) Ground No. 1- Addition Of Rs. 2,14,62,523/- As Unexplained Cash Credit (U/S 68) On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Ao Erred In Making An Addition Of Rs. 2,14,62,523/- On Account Of Unexplained Unsecured Loans Without Considering The Nature Of Deposits.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Pawar

Section 143(3)Section 68Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

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

Dindayal Magasvargiya Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd, Sangli vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle Sangli, Circle Sangli

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

ITA 205/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.205/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Dindayal Magasvargiya Vs. Acit, Circle Sangli, Sahakari Soot Girni Ltd., Sangli. At Waghwadi, Post Kameri, Tal. Walwa, Sangli- 415403. Pan : Aaaad0254E Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pramod S. Shingte Revenue By : Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde Date Of Hearing : 22.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.12.2025 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.12.2024 Passed By Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, Ld. Ao Erred In Initiating Reassessment Proceedings U/S 147 For Ay 2014-15, Being The Year Beyond 4 Years & For Which Assessment Order U/S 143(3) Has Already Been Passed, Thereby

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S. ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 37Section 438

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

Ghodawat Skystar LLP (Formerly Ghodawat Consumer Products LLP), Kolhapur vs. DCIT Circle 1, Kolhapur

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

ITA 1400/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19 Ghodawat Skystar Llp Dcit, Circle – 1, Kolhapur (Formerly Ghodawat Consumer Products Llp) Vs. Plot No.438, Ap Chipri Via Jaysingpur Shirol, Kolhapur – 416101 Pan: Aamfg7028C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri B S Rajpurohit Department By : Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.Cit Date Of Hearing : 08-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri B S RajpurohitFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali, Addl.CIT

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

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 11.03.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2018-19. 2. Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order ... NFAC in confirming the disallowance of depreciation of Rs.1,00,05,726/- made by the Assessing Officer and Rs.1,68,60,314/- disallowed by the Assessing Officer out of interest expenses. 3. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an LLP and filed its return

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Pune vs. Honeywell Automation India Limited, Pune

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1096/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

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

For Appellant: Shri Siddhesh Chaugule &For Respondent: Shri Manish M. Mehta

Section 135Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 37Section 37(1)Section 80GSection 80G(1)(ii)Section 80G(2)(a)Section 80G(5)(vi)

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY) 2020-21. 2. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessee e-filed

Navnath Mahadev Kunjir, Pune vs. ITO Ward 14(5) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2083/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A. VazeFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Haladkar

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.07.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY) 2016-17. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is engaged in the business ... above, on the basis of facts and in the circumstances of the case and as per law, the Commissioner of Income Tax, (Appeals)-NFAC Delhi is not justified in confirming the addition of Rs 1,30,30,628/-in respect of purchase of landed property on 19/10/2015. 7. Without prejudice

Sanket Kailas Pawar, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Aurangabad

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

ITA 1194/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Shri Prateek Jha &For Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde

Section 10(37)Section 143(1)Section 154

DCIT, Aurangabad vs. Bg Li in Electricals Limited, Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 1087/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Richa Gulati (Virtually)

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 35

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 19.03.2024 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY) 2016-17. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is a limited company ... No.1087/PUN/2024, AY 2016-17 4. Dissatisfied, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following solitary ground of appeal : “The CIT(A), NFAC, New Delhi has erred in allowing the claim of R&D expenditure with weightage deduction

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Aurangabad vs. Dhananjay Babruvan Kender, Beed

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

ITA 1032/PUN/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Pune09 Dec 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2019-20 Dcit, Aurangabad Dhananjay Babruvan Kender Bunglow No.69, Yogeshwari Nagari Vs. Ring Road, Ambajogai, Beed – 431517 Pan: Bwlpk1384D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Krishan Department By : Shri Amol Khairnar, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 27-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 09-12-2025 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Hari KrishanFor Respondent: Shri Amol Khairnar, CIT-DR

Section 132Section 133ASection 142(1)Section 153ASection 69Section 69C

delete the impugned addition. The Ground No.3 of the appeal is therefore, ALLOWED.” 8. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the Revenue is in appeal before the Tribunal by raising the following grounds: 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Blupex Vinimoy Pvt. Ltd., North Twenty Four Parganas vs. I.T.O., Ward - 14(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2274/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2274/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2020-2021) Blupex Vinimoy Private Ltd. Vs Ito, Ward-14(1), Kolkata The Terminus, Room No.415, 4Th Floor, 32 Marg, Bg-12, Aa-1B, North 24 Parganas, New Town, West Bengal-56 Pan No. :Aabcb 0157 F (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By Shri Deep Agarwal, Ar रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 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 11.09.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21, Confirming The Penalty Levied U/S.270A Of The Act 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld.Ar That The Appeal Is A Penalty Appeal & The Quantum Matter Is Pending Before The Ld.Cit(A). It Was Also The Submission That The Main Issue For Levy Of Penalty Was A Valuation Report Which Had Not Received By The Assessing Officer When The Assessment Order Was Passed. It Was The Submission That Even Till Date The Valuation Report Has Not Been Received Nor Has Been Provided Too The Assessee. It Was The Submission In Page 2 Of The Order The Ld. Cit(A) Has Categorically Condoned The Delay, However, In Para 5.7 Of His Order, He Has Dismissed

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr.DR

Section 270ASection 50CSection 50C(2)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 11.09.2025 for the assessment year 2020-21, confirming the penalty levied u/s.270A of the Act 2. It was submitted by the ld.AR that the appeal

Shibani Addhya, Bongaon vs. ITO Ward-49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2270/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2270/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2020-2021 Shibani Addhya,………..……………………….…Appellant Shimultala, Bongaon, South 24-Parganas-743235, W.B. [Pan:Afypa7101D] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex Ds-Iv, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal Appearances By: Ms. Swatee Baid, A.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: December 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.02.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2020-2021. 1 Shibani Addhya 2. The appeal is time barred by 161 days in filing the appeal ... Income Tax Officer, Ward-49(1), Kolkata, Income Tax Office, Uttarapan Complex DS-IV, Kolkata-700054, West Bengal (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Gopal Kundu Roy, Siliguri vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Siliguri

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

ITA 2263/KOL/2025[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 2263/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-2015 Gopal Kundu Roy,……………………………….…Appellant ‘Hare Krishna Bhawan’, P.O. Rabindra Sarani, Rathkhola Bazar, Siliguri-734006, West Bengal [Pan:Acgpr0359H] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,……………………………..Respondent Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B.

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)Section 54F

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 19.08.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2014-2015. 1 Gopal Kundu Roy 2. Facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual. During ... Siliguri-734006, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Siliguri, Aayakar Bhawan, Paribahan Nagar, Matigara, Dist. Darjeeling-734010, W.B. (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad vs. Abhoy Kumar Jain, Aurangabad, Jangipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2022/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rajesh Kumarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.2022/Kol/2025 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-2018) Ito Ward-42(1), Murshidabad Vs Abhoy Kumar Jain, 39, R.N.Tagore Road, Berhampur, Murshidabad Pan No. :Acopj 2370 E (अपीलधर्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) रधजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Dheeraj, Sr.Dr निर्धाररती की ओर से /Assessee By None सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 09/12/2025 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 09/12/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per Bench : This Is An Appeal Filed By The Revenue Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Dated 01.07.2025 For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. It Was Submitted By The Ld. Sr. Dr That The Ld.Cit(A) Has Quashed The Assessment, Insofar As He Has Held That Notice U/S.143(2) Of The Act Was Not In Compliance With The Instruction Issued By The Cbdt In Instruction No. 1/2011 [F. No. 187/12/2010-It(A-I)], Dated 31- 1-2011. It Was The Submission That The Assessee Has Not Intimated This Defect Before The Assessing Officer In Line With The Provisions Of Section 124(3) Of The Act. It Was The Prayer That The Order Of The Ld.Cit(A) Be Reversed & That Of The Ld.Ao Be Restored. 3. We Have Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A). A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld.

For Respondent: Shri Dheeraj, Sr.DR

Section 124(3)Section 143Section 143(2)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the revenue against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 01.07.2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. It was submitted by the ld. Sr. DR that the ld.CIT(A) has quashed the assessment, insofar

Anisur Rahaman, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 42(1), Murshidabad

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

ITA 1818/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malati Ghosh, CIT-DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 04.06.2025 for the assessment year 2018-2019. 2. The appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 09 days. In this regard, Id. AR filed

Raghvendra Singh, Howrah vs. Income Tax Officer, Bamboo Villa, Calcutta

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

ITA 1763/KOL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 1763/Kol/2025 Assessment Year: 2018-2019 Raghvendra Singh,……………….………...……Appellant 13, Burnt Salt Gola Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal [Pan:Bjhps6740J] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………..…..Respondent Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 Appearances By: Shri Vidyut Sethi, C.A., Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Shri Kallol Mistry, Jcit, Sr. D.R., Appeared On Behalf Of The Revenue Date Of Concluding The Hearing: November 13, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order: December 09, 2025 O R D E R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 270ASection 56(2)(x)

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 04.06.2025 passed for Assessment Year 2018-2019. 2. The facts in brief are that the assessee is an individual, who filed his return ... Lane, Howrah-711101, West Bengal (2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-62(1), Kolkata, Bamboo Villa, 169, A.J.C. Bose Road, Kolkata-700014 (3) CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi; (4) CIT - , Kolkata; (5) The Departmental Representative; (6) Guard FileBy order

DCIT Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balmukund Lease Fin Private Limited, Patna

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1759/KOL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A

Gujrat High Court in Navjivan Oil Mills Vs CIT (2002)124Taxman392(Guj). The coordinate bench in the case of Premji Bhuralal Gala Vs NFAC (2024) taxmann.com 570(Mum Tri) has held that cash loans cannot be treated as income of the assessee. Therefore, we are not in agreement with

DCIT, Central Circle-4(3), Kolkata vs. Balmukund Cement & Roofings Private Limited, Kolkata

The appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 1704/KOL/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Dec 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubey, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Manish Rastogi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Pankaj Pandey, DR

Section 115JSection 132Section 147Section 148Section 69A