“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

Panorama Electronics Private Limited (Earlier Known As Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 8(1), Kolkata

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2140/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), hence an exparte order was passed confirming the action of Ld. AO. It was averred by the Ld. AR that the main grievance of the assessee was that a demand was raised under Section 147 of the Act which had already been raised earlier under Section 143(3) of the Act, even when no return was filed for M/s Asahi Electronics Pvt. Ltd., the income of which was purportedly used in the present case. 1.2 Aggrieved with this action of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee has approached the ITA

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 03.09.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case, it was pointed out by the Ld. AR that the total income determined

Bhuban Mondal, Murshidabad vs. ITO, Ward 42(2), Murshidabad

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2138/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 144Section 249(2)Section 249(3)Section 250Section 44ASection 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 01.09.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)”]. 1.1 In this case, the Ld. AO is seen to have passed an order u/s 144 of the Act on account

Dharmapuri District Consumers Coop Whole Sales Stores Ltd., Dharmapuri vs. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Salem

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

ITA 2568/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 69A

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 19.12.2023, 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.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... order u/s.144 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 26.02.2020. 5. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed

Surana Taxtiles, Chennai vs. ITO, Nc Ward 6(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2540/CHNY/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 18.12.2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2012-13 against the order u/s.143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Income ... r.w.s 147 of the Act dated 29.11.2019. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 14.01.2020. However, the assessee did not respond to any of the five notices issued by the ld.CIT(A) from

Gokul, Coimbatore vs. DCIT, Non Corp Circle 4, Coimbatore

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

ITA 2539/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

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

For Respondent: 18.11.2025

Section 144Section 147

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 21.07.2025, 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.147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 144B of the Income ... r.w.s 144B of the Act dated 24.03.2022. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 27.09.2022. 4. At the outset, we observed that ld.CIT(A) has provided four opportunities for the assessee to appear for hearings as detailed

Subramanian Bashkaran, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corporate Ward 10(6), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 2538/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

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

For Appellant: Ms. R. Anitha, Addl. CITFor Respondent: 19.11.2025

Section 133(6)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151ASection 69

S.R.RAGHUNATHA, AM : This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order dated 09.07.2025, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi (in short “ld.CIT(A)”) for the assessment year (A.Y) 2016-17 against the order u/s.147 r.w.s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... order u/s.148A(d) dated 27.03.2023 have been issued by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corp.Ward-10(6), Chennai [JAO] and not by the NFAC which is not in accordance with the aforesaid Scheme. We find that though the order under Clause(d) to Section 148A of the Act dated

Raman Mayavan, Namakkal vs. ITO, Circle-1, Erode

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

ITA 2418/CHNY/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2418/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 Raman Mayavan, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 65, Rangar Sannathi Street, Circle 1, Namakkal 637 001. Erode. [Pan:Abbpm8802G] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode] ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. E. Pavuna Sundari, Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 20.11.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.07.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Raised 5 Grounds Of Appeal Amongst Which, The Only Issue Emanates For Our Consideration As To Whether The Ld. Cit(A) Is Justified In Dismissing The Appeal Of The Assessee Without Considering The Additional Evidences Filed In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case.

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate [Erode]For Respondent: Ms. E. pavuna Sundari, CIT

Section 143(3)Section 68

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.07.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. The assessee raised 5 grounds of appeal amongst which, the only issue emanates for our consideration

Olympia Fitness Private Limited, Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, Delhi

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

ITA 6987/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Physical Hearing) Olympia Fitness Private Limited , Income Tax Officer, Ward-19(1), S-569, 2Nd Floor, Greater Kailash-Ii, Vs New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110048 Pan: Aaaco 8227 G Appellant / Assessee Respondent / Revenue

Section 133ASection 254(1)Section 68

assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) is bad both in the eye of law and on facts. 2. i) On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred ... opportunity of being heard in violation of principle of natural justice. ii) That the non appearance on the last date of hearing before the NFAC was for the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case, the NFAC has erred both

Sunita Aggarwal, Wife of Keshav Aggarwal vs. Income Tax Officer, the Income Tax Officer Narnaul

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6801/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2015-16

Section 143(3)

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

Arun Kumar Murarka, West Delhi vs. ITO Ward 36 (1), New Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6771/DEL/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2013-14

Section 147

1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment

Tariq Khan, Rampur vs. Income Tax Officer, Rampur

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6669/DEL/2025[202021]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godaraassessment Year: 2020-21

Section 147

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Tariq Khan, Vs NFAC/ Assessment Unit 51, Gher Peepal wala, Income Tax Department Masjid Mohabat Rampur Cirty-244901. PAN: IOHPK 4405 L APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee represented by Ms. Anjani Suri

Jile Singh, Haryana vs. Farmer, Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5018/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.5018/Del/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Jile Singh, Vs. | NFAC, 1, Bijopur (35), Faridabad, Delhi Fatehpur Tagga B.O., Faridabad PAN: DQRPS7587C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, CIT(DR) Date

Rajesh Kapoor, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-47(1), Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1454/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2018-19 Sh. Rajesh Kapoor, Vs. Acit, 4067, Naya Bazar, Circle-47(1), Delhi-06 New Delhi Pan: Aampk0063B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Ramesh Goel, Ca Sh. Ratan Lal Goel, Adv. Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr)

Section 144

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Triburg Investments and Engineers Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 25(4), Delhi

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn subject to all just exceptions

ITA 1144/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Manish Agarwalassessment Year: 2012-13 Triburg Investments & Vs. Income Tax Officer, Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ward-25(4), 314 & 316, Ansal Chambers- Delhi Ii, Bhikaji Cama Place, Delhi Pan: Aabct4714C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By Sh. Pranav Yadav, Adv. Department By Ms. Amisha S. Gupta, Cit(Dr)

Section 147Section 249(2)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCH: ‘E’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Intermesh Shopping Network Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward 12(3), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1579/MUM/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 Dec 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sudhir Kumarintermesh Shopping Network Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Lower Ground Unit No. 1-06, Ward-12(3), Boomerang, Chandivali Farmroad, Delhi Chandivali, Mumbai-400072 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaaci7990L

For Appellant: Ms. Simran Dhawan, Adv (VC)For Respondent: Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 131Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

1587/Mum/2024 for AY 2016-17, arises out of the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060575010(1) dated 06.02.2024 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter ... value under section 56(2)(viib) of the Act and completed the assessment. This action of the Learned AO was upheld by the Learned NFAC. 7. It is not in dispute that the assessee had valued the shares from an approved valuer using DCF method, which is also

M/S Parasnath Fuels (P) Ltd., Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 213/DDN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwalparasnath Fuels Pvt. Ltd., The Dcit, Circle 1(1), 28 Feet Road, Dehradun Vikas Nagar, Vs Dehradun - 248198 Pan-Aaicp2190D Assessee Revenue Assessee By Dr. Rakesh Gupta, Adv., Shri Somil Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By Sh. Amar Pal Singh, Jcit Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 11.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2025 Order Per Manish Agarwal, Am, This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appellate Centre [Cit(A), In Short], Dated 08.10.2024 In Appeal No. Nfac/2016-17/10104734 Arising Out Of The Order Passed U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘The Act’) Dt. 08.10.2024 For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: 1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Assumption Of Jurisdiction In Initiating The Proceedings U/S 147 & Passing The Impugned Order U/S 147/144B & That Too Without Complying With Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151A Parasnath Fuels Pvt.Ltd. Vs. Dcit

Section 115BSection 147Section 234ASection 68

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DEHRADUN BENCH: DEHRADUN BEFORE SHRI YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI MANISH AGARWAL

Parth Singh Pundir, Dehradun vs. CIT Appeal, Dehradun

In the result, Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 80/DDN/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun28 Nov 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

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

1 ITA No. 80/DDN/2023 Parth Singh PundirVs.CIT (A) IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI [ DELHI BENCH : “SMC (DEHRADUN)/ NEW

Shiva Preservation Private Limited, Etawah vs. ITO, Ward 2(2)(5), Etawah

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 318/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Nov 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Shiva Preservation Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, Kaist, Jawantnagar, Etawah, Ward-2(2)(5), Uttar Pradesh -206245 Etawah (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaecs3418D Assessee By : Shri Rajesh Malhotra, Ca Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20/11/2025 Date Of Pronouncement /11/2025

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 271(1)Section 274Section 68

appeal in ITA No. 318/AGR/2025 for AY 2025, arises out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as „ld. NFAC‟, in short] dated 12.08.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred

Rajendra Sahu, Katni vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Katni

ITA 162/JAB/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu, Vs. Income Tax Officer-1, Ram Manohar Lohiya Ward No. 4, Behind Katni Durga Hospital, Adarsh Colony, Katni Pan: Auvps4330A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr 1 Date Of Hearing: 17.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 20.10.2023 Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Passed By The Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Income Tax Act On 27.03.2022. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “(1) The Order Passed By The Ld Cit (A) Is Bad In Law & Facts, Void Ab Initio & Without Jurisdiction. (2) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Notice Issued U/S 148 Is Defective. There Is No Application Of Mind Of Ld Ao & Also Of Sanctioning Authority. (3) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When Assessee Made Specific Request To Share Copies Of All The Statement Recorded By The Investigation Wing Regarding The Sale Of Properties. These Copies Were Not Given Inspite Of Using Them Against The Assessee. (4) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Order, When The Hon'Ble Tribunal For Benami Transactions Has Released The Property & Given Relief To Alleged Benamidar & Alleged Beneficial Owner. Copy Of Order Was Filed On Record. (5) The Ld Cit (A) Erred In Law & Facts Of The Case In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs 88,52,740/-U/S 69. 1 A.Y. 2013-14 Rajendra Sahu (6) The Appellant Reserves The Right To Add, Amend Or Alter Any Grounds Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR 1

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 69

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 20.10.2023 wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income

Renu Anandani, Jabalpur vs. NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/JAB/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur28 Nov 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SH. KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Neeraj Agarwal, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 263

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dismissing the appeal of the assessee against the order of the ld. AO passed under section 147 r.w.s. 263 r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act. The grounds of appeal