“NFAC”

Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2(2), Shri Muktsar Sahib

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 666/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Simranjeet Kaur Bhatti, 2640 Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), Gurdev Nagar Ferozepur Road, Muktsar. Ludhiana, Punjab. [Pan:-Daapb9062E] (Respondent) (Appellant) Appellant By Sh. Gunjeet Singh Syal, Adv. Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 07.10.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Ward-2(2), Muktsar, passed

Sudesh Kumari, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1 Jammu Rail Head Complex Panama Chowk Jammu, Jammu

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

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 601/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sudesh Kumari, Vs. Ito, Ward- 1, C/O Sh. P. N. Arora, Advocate, Jammu & Kashmir. 3Rd Floor Srk Mall, 14- Kennedy, Avenue Mall Road, Amritsar. [Pan:-Aibpk7352E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. P. N. Arora, Adv Respondent By Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. Dr

Date of Pronouncement 21.11.2025 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 12.09.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, NFAC, Delhi, passed

Shri Muzafer Ahmad Rather, Anantnag vs. Income Tax Officer Ward, Udhampur

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

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

Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 19.12.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, NFAC, Delhi passed

Shri Mohammad Amin Sofi, Srinagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Srinagar

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

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

Date of Pronouncement : 21.11.2025 ORDER Per Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi dated 30.11.2023 passed u/s 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which has emanated from the order of the AO, Ward 2, Srinagar

Santosh Kumar, Atarra, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer, Banda

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against separate orders, both dated 12.02.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the assessee ... imposed a penalty of Rs.2,70,776/- under the provisions of section 271E of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeals before the NFAC, which dismissed both the appeals of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the orders of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee

Santosh Kumar, Atarra Banda vs. Income Tax Officer, Banda

In the result, both the appeals of the Assessee stand allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastava

These appeals have been preferred by the Assessee against separate orders, both dated 12.02.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that during the course of assessment proceedings for the year under consideration, the assessee ... imposed a penalty of Rs.2,70,776/- under the provisions of section 271E of the Act. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeals before the NFAC, which dismissed both the appeals of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the orders of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee

Hushn Jahan, Amethi vs. Income Tax Officer Amethi, Amethi

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Hushn Jahan V. The Income Tax Officer Palpur Raebareli Road Amethi Jagdishpur, Musfirkhana Amethi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Autpj9095P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 20.02.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A, 271AAC, 271B and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.4 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by sustaining the addition of Rs.16,50,000/- made under section 69A of the Act and deleted

Mohd Ubaid Ansari, Allahabad vs. ITO, Allahabad

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2015-16 Mohd Ubaid Ansari V. The Income Tax Department 337, Sultanpur Bhawa (Faceless) Noorulla Road Khuldabad Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bajpa0699B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 29.01.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2015-16. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... 144B of the Act, assessing the total income of the assessee at Rs.39,99,466/-. 2.3 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.4 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order

Ramendra Singh, Kannauj vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(2)(3), Kannauj

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramendra Singh V. The Income Tax Officer Bahadurpur Ward 4(2)(3) Majhigawan Kannauj Kannauj (U.P) Tan/Pan:Gzqps7971P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shvetank Garg, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 26.07.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That Huge Amounts Have Been Credited To The Assessee’S Bank Account No.001311002103008 Maintained With Farrukhabad District Central Co-Operative Bank, Saurikh, Kannauj By Way Of Cash & Credit Entries. The Assessing Officer (Ao) Issued Notice Under Section 142(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Requiring The Assessee To Furnish The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. However, The Said Notice Was

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 26.07.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the orders of the AO as well as the NFAC by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Section 144 (Addition Deposit and credit entrees as per bank statement) The amount of cash deposit

Sandeep Kumar Pandey, Handia vs. Income Tax Officer - 1(3), Prayagraj

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

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2019-20 Sandeep Kumar Pandey V. The Income Tax Officer 1(3) 012, Saitapur, Barethi Allahabad Handia, Allahabad (U.P) Tan/Pan:Blapp5054M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Shubham Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 21.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Had Not Filed The Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration. The Income Tax Department Was In Possession Of Information That The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposits Of Rs.12,27,477/- In Bank Account No.0369000112307099 Maintained With Punjab National Bank & Of Rs.86,000/- In Bank Account Maintained With Bank Of Baroda During The Year Under Consideration. The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 21.05.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2019- 20. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee for the reason of delay of 51 days in filing the appeal before the Ld. First Appellate Authority (NFAC). 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.136/ALLD/2025 Page

Meenu, Govindpur, Allahabad vs. Income Tax Officer CPC (NFAC, Delhi)

Appeal stands dismissed in- limine on the ground of limitation

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Meenu V. The Income Tax Officer Mig-23, Govindpur Cpc A-503, Satpushp Apartment Civil Lines, Allahabad Pan:Akfpm3770J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri S. K. Yogeshwar, Advocate Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.02.2023, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed Her Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration On 05.08.2017, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.8,30,470/-. The Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc), Bangalore, Vide Intimation Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’), Dated 26.03.2019 Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee At Rs.16,12,650/-.

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 09.02.2023, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration ... dated 26.03.2019 assessed the total income of the assessee at Rs.16,12,650/-. 2.1 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by ITA No.135/ALLD/2025 Page 2 of 8 deleting the addition of Rs.4,94,698/- and sustaining the addition

Mohammad Ghufran, Kaushambi vs. ITO - 2(5), Kaushambi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Mohammad Ghufran V. The Income Tax Officer 2(5) Hazratganj Kaushambi Karari Manjhanpur Kaushambi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bpfpg0938A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Mohit Singh Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, D.R. O R D E R

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 12.07.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... initiated penalty proceedings under sections 271AAC and 271F of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee ex-parte qua the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging

Income Tax Officer-2(1), Bhilai vs. Ashish Gupta, Durg

In the result, appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.624/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2010-11

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Chetanbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra, Jamnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Jamnagar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed, in above terms

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos. 294/Rjt/2025 (Assessment Year: 2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Chetanbhai Chhaganbhai Vs. Income Tax Officer Sojitra Ward-1(5), Jamnagar Village Motiveraval Near Main Road, Lalpur, Jamnagar, Gujarat-361012 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Gwgps7389N (अपीलाथ"/Assessee) (""यथ"/Respondent)

against the order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax I.T.A Nos. 294/Rjt/2025 A.Y. 2013-14 Chetanbhai Chhaganbhai Sojitra (Appeals), (in short ‘CIT(A)’), dated 24/03/2025, which in turn arises

Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.551/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 (Physical Hearing) Shailesh Devrajbhai Padmani Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(5), बनाम/ A/503, Swarg Residency, Surat, Room No. 608, 6Nd Floor, Vs. Laxmikant Ashram Road, Nr. Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Gate, Hathiwala Mandir, Surat-395 Surat-395 001 004 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aoupp 6320 E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent)

under: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in passing ex-parte order u/s 144 without giving reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. ITA No.551/Srt/2025 A.Y 12-13 Shailesh D Padmani ... facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in reopening assessment by issuing notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 3. On the facts

Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Legal Heir of Popatbhai Virabhai Dakhra, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 2(3)(3), Surat

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

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.170/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-18 (Physical Hearing) Rameshbhai Popatbhai Dakhra Income Tax Officer Ward-2(3)(3), बनाम/ Legal Heir Of Popatbhai Surat, Aayakar Bhavan, Surat-395 Vs. Virabhai Dakhra 001 Plot No.17,Ganesh Row House, Nr. Shyamdham Temple, Sarthana, Jakatnaka, Surat- 395 006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aknpd 3920 H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) िनधा"रती की ओर से /Appellant By Shri Mehul Shah, Ca राज" की ओर से /Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 01/09/2025 उद्घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

order passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, 'the Act’) dated 03.10.2023 by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi/Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) [in short ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2017- 18, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed ... served physically, ITA No.170/Srt/2025 A.Y 17-18 Rameshbhai P Dakhra therefore, assessee did not come to know about the order of the CIT(A) (NFAC) being passed on 03.10.2023. It is also submitted that the assessee had expired on 05.05.2021 and there was no other responsible person for follow

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(1), Surat, Adajan vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

Bench: Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth(Hybrid Hearing) Ito, Vs. Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Ward – 1(3)(1), 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Surat Road, Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat – 395007 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Co No.36/Srt/2024 (Ay 2015-16) (Arising Out Of Ita No.720/Srt/2024) Chandubhai Jadavbhai Korat, Vs. Ito, 5, Raghuvir Bungalow, City Light Road, Ward – 1(3)(1), Bharthana, B.O. Umra, Surat - 395007 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Abqpk7796L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Mukesh Jain, Cit-Dr Respondent By Shri Rasesh Shah, Ca Date Of Hearing 02/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

appeals by revenue and assessee emanate from the order dated 01.05.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for assessment year (AY) 2015-16. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the revenue are as follows

Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Panoli, Bharuch, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Office, Ward 1(1), Bharuch, Gujarat

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

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1232/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Hybrid Hearing) Baker Abdulaziz Norat, Vs. Ito, 107, Panoli Travels, Station Road, Ward – 1(1), Panoli, Bharuch – 394115 Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Akepn7411Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms Vidhi Pandya, Ca Respondent By Shri Abhishek Gautam, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/11/2025

Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act’) dated 24.09.2024 by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, ‘the CIT(A)’] for the assessment year (AY) 2018-19. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: “1. That

Bhargav Ram Munagapati, Vijayawada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Vijayawada

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, विशाखापटणम पीठ, विशाखापटणम IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM “DIVISION” BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (HYBRID HEARING) श्री रवीश

The Krishna Farmers Service Cooperative Society Limited, Jaggaiahpet vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1(3), Vijayawada

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

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri S Balakrishnan, Hon’Ble

following grounds of appeal: - “1. Both in law and in Facts of the case, the order made by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi is bad in law, arbitrary, contrary to the provisions of law and against the principles of natural justice. 2. On the facts and circumstances ... case and in law the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi, erred in sustaining the order of the income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Vijayawada by confirming the disallowance of deduction claimed u/s 80P amounting to Rs.91,18,441/- though the assessee claimed deduction u/s 80P in the return