← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

The Omniscient Securties Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(2)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8023/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order(s) of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], both dated 29-09-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that assessment

The Omniscient Securities Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 4(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 8021/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Kiran MehtaFor Respondent: Shri Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 271ASection 69ASection 69C

These two appeals filed by the assessee against the order(s) of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟], both dated 29-09-2025, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that assessment

Portescap India Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 2(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in light of aforesaid directions

ITA 7479/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhailassessment Year : 2019-20 Portescap India Private Limited, The Deputy Commissioner Of Unit No. 101, Tower Ii, Income Tax, Seepz Sez, Vs. Circle-2(3)(1), Andheri East, Room No. 552, 5Th Floor, Seepz S.O., Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai-400096. M.K.Road, Pan : Aaack4896K Mumbai-400020. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Pranay Gandhi A/W. Shri Lekh Mehta, For Revenue : Shri R.A. Dhyani, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing : 17-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 05-03-2026 O R D E R Per Vikram Singh Yadav, A.M :

For Appellant: Shri Pranay Gandhi a/wFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Dhyani, CIT-DR
Section 10ASection 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 234BSection 250Section 43B

AddI/JCIT(Appeals)-4, Bengaluru deciding on these appeal issues and Order u/s 154 r.w.s. 250 dated 11.04.2025 was passed by the CIT(Appeals), NFAC, Delhi for the same Α.Υ. 2019-20. 5.12 In view of all the above, as the base intimation u/s 143(1) dated 28.03.2021 has been

Jignesh Natverlal Patel (Represnted by Late Natverlal Nanubhai Patel), Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 24(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 6769/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawaljignesh Natverlal Patel Vs Ito Ward-24(3)(1), Mumbai (Represented By Late Piramal Chamber, Lalbaug, Natverlal Nanubhai Patel) Mumbai-400012 401 Adarsh Building, Rto Four Bunglows, Andheri (West), Mumbai-400053 Pan:Aaapp1767B Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Aditya RamchandranFor Respondent: Shri Sushil B. Shende (Sr DR)
Section 139(1)Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151Section 151ASection 250

pronouncement : 05/03/2026 O R D E R Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity ‘the ld. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity ‘the Act’) for assessment year

ACIT Circle 3(2)(1), Mumbai vs. Sol Entertainment Private Limited, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6017/MUM/2025[2013]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand V Mahadeokara.Y:2013-14 Acit, Circle – 3(2)(1) Vs. Sol Entertainment Pvt Ltd Room No. 608, 6Th Floor, 903-904, 9Th Floor, Aayakar Aayakar Bhavan, Mk Bhavan, Mk Road, Road, Churchgate, Churchgate, Mumbai Mumbai – 400020. Pan/Gir No.Aapcs6369A (Applicant) (Respondent)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 4

MAHADEOKAR, AM: This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ―CIT(A)‖], dated 07.07.2025, passed under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961[hereinafter referred

Iphonline Limited (Now As Asapp Info Global Servies Pvt Ltd), Mumbai vs. DCIT, Cir-6(1)(2), Mumbai

ITA 5946/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 143(1)Section 250Section 36(1)(vii)Section 36(2)Section 36(2)(i)

Choudhry, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated03.09.2025 impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short

Efficient Illumination Private Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Mumbai

ITA 5048/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19
For Appellant: Shri Neelkanth Khandelwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80Section 80I

hearing : 27/01/2026 Date of pronouncement : 05/03/2026 ORDER Per: Anikesh Banerjee (JM): The instant appeal of the assessee filed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [for brevity 'the Id. CIT(A)], order passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act 1961 (for brevity 'the Act') for assessment year ... date of order 26.03.2021. 2. The assessee has taken following grounds: “The Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) at the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred to as the CIT(A)) erred in upholding the action of the Officer at the National e-Assessment Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred

Mehul Pravinchandra Sheth, Mumbai vs. DCIT, C.C 1(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 4702/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Girish Agrawal

Section 10Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 270ASection 274

immunity under section 270AA has been considered by the Coordinate Bench of the ITAT, Patna, in the case of Sangam Almirah Pvt. Ltd. vs. NFAC, Delhi, ITA No. 338/PAT/2025, order dated 27.10.2025. The relevant observations contained in paragraphs 7 and 8 of the said decision are reproduced hereunder: “7. Since

Jayshree Haresh Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, 19(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 4206/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2014-15
Section 10(38)Section 133(6)Section 139(1)Section 143(2)

ITA No.4206/Mum/2025 Jayshree Haresh Shah 2. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return u/sec

Dy. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Circle - 6(2), Mumbai vs. Tata Aig General Insurance Co. Ltd, Mumbai

Accordingly, Ground No.2 of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2403/MUM/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Tata Aig General Insurance Company Limited (Tagic), Mumbai vs. Assessment Unit, Income-Tax Department

ITA 1432/MUM/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Shri Madhur AgrawalFor Respondent: Shri Ritesh Misra (CIT DR)
Section 10(38)Section 111ASection 112Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234ASection 234BSection 234DSection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

ACIT, Circle-3, Gurugram, Gurgaron vs. Perfetti Van Melle Inida Private Limited, Gurgaon

In the result the appeal of the revenue stands dismissed

ITA 623/DEL/2025[2010]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalacit, Circle-3 Vs. Perfetti Van Melle India 2Nd Floor, Hshdc Pvt. Limited, Building, Shankar Chowk, 47, Milestone Delhi Jaipur Gurugram, Highway Manesar Haryana – 122001 Haryana - 122051 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aaacp2626A Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Sh. Anmol Anand, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Pooja Swaroop, CIT (DR)
Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 263Section 80

ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2024 of the Ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in DIN & P a g e | 2 Perfetti Van Melle India Pvt. Limited

ACIT, Circle-7(1), Delhi vs. Delhi Control Devices Private Limited, Delhi

In the result, the revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 5909/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanasstt. Year : 2018-19

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manish Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 14Section 147Section 53

Pronouncement 02.03.2026 ORDER PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VP: This appeal has been filed by the Revenue against the order dated 24.7.2025 passed by the NFAC, Delhi in appeal no. NFAC/2017-18/10333954. Assessment was framed vide order dated 1.3.2024 passed u/s. 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act relevant for the relevant assessment year

Dharmbati, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Inspector Faridabad, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 5672/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2018-19 Dharmbati, Vs. Income Tax Inspector, H. No. 523, Chandawali, Faridabad Ballabhgarh, Faridabad Pan: Azipb6400G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Monika Singh, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 05.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 05.03.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2018-19, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2025-26/1077406804(1), Dated 23.06.2025 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. It Emerges During The Course Of Hearing That The Sole Substantive Issue Between The Parties Is That Of Correctness Of The Learned Lower Authorities’ Action Assessing The Assessee’S Interest Component Of Land Acquisition Compensation U/S 28 Of The Land Acquisition Act, 1894, While Invoking Section 57(Iv) R.W.S. 56(1)(A) R.W.S. 145A(B) Of The Act. 3. Learned Sr. Dr Representing The Department Vehemently Argued That The Instant Issue Is No More Res Integra In Light Of Mahender Pal Narang Vs. Cbdt (2020) 423 Itr 13 (P&H) As Well As Pcit Vs. Inderjit Singh Sodhi Huf (2024) 161 Taxmann.Com 301 (Del.) Wherein The Department Has Succeeded Before Their Lordships That The Impugned Interest Component Ought To Be Assessed As Income From “Other” Sources Only. 4. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assessee’S Pleadings & Revenue’S Foregoing Vehement Contention. It Emerges That This Tribunal’S Recent Decision In Pawan Kumar Vs. Pcit (2024) 159 Taxmann.Com 61 (Del.-Trib.) Has Distinguished The Said Case Law As Under:

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143Section 143(1)(a)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 28Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57

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

Krc Gems Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, CC-28, New Delhi

ITA 5596/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Naveen Chandra

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 250Section 271A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER And SHRI

Srinivasa Rao Sirivuri Proprietor, Vizianagaram vs. Income Tax Officer, Vizianagaram

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 459/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam04 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Hon’Ble & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara, Hon’Ble

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 44ASection 69A

following grounds of appeal before us: “1. The impugned appellate order dated 20.12.2024 passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC, Delhi is unjust and uncalled for. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) ought to have considered the grounds of appeal judiciously, in the interests

N.A.M. Expressway Limited, Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-5(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 2044/HYD/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: the due date provided for filing return of income u/s 139(1) of the Act, which attracts the provisions section 43B, however, the said amount 3

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 270A(9)Section 274Section 43B

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National 2 N.A.M.Expressway Limited Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”], dated 26.09.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed

Pedaveeti Swathi, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward 9(1), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 1785/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri Ravish Soodआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1785/Hyd/2025 (िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2016-17) Pedaveeti Swathi, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward-9(1), Pan: Fugps2126J Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा""रती "ारा/Assessee By: Shri T. Chaitanya Kumar, Advocate राज" व "ारा/Revenue By: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 26/02/2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of 04/03/2026 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Ravish Sood, J.M: The Present Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Dated 03/06/2025, Which In Turn Arises From The Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (For Short, “Ao”) Under Section 147 R.W.S 144 R.W.S 144B Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (For Short, “The Act”), Dated 27/02/2024 For The Assessment Year (Ay) 2016-17. The Assessee Has Assailed The Impugned Order Of The Cit(A) On The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: Shri T. Chaitanya KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr.AR
Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) order is erroneous in facts and law. 2. The learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi, erred in upholding the assessment order passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 1448 dated 27.02.2024, which was itself bad in law, illegal, and void ab initio

Parvathaneni Praveen, Khammam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Khammam

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1271/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiao.4Tt.A /Ita.No.1271/Hyd/2025

For Appellant: Sri KA Sai Prasad, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, Sr. AR

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 06.12.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2021-2022. ITA.No.1271/Hyd./2025 2. There is a delay of 159 days in filing the present appeal. The assessee

Chaitanya Agarwal, Hyderabad vs. ITO., Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1098/HYD/2025[2017-2018]Status: HeardITAT Hyderabad04 Mar 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdiaआ.अपी.सं /Ita.No.1098/Hyd/2025 Assessment Year 2017-2018 Chaitanya Agarwal, The Income Tax Officer, Vs. Hyderabad. Ward-7(1), Hyderabad. Telangana. Pin 500 012 Pin – 500 084. Telangana. Pan Artpc2750K (Appellant) (Respondent) िनधा"रती "ारा/Assessee By Sri Akshay Surana, Ca राज" व "ारा/Revenue By Ms Reema Yadav, Sr. Ar सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing: 02.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Pronouncement: 04.03.2026 आदेश/Order Per Vijay Pal Rao:

Section 144Section 270ASection 68

PRESIDENT : This appeal by the Assessee is directed against the Order dated 27.11.2024 of the learned CIT(A)-National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2 ITA.No.1098/Hyd./2025 2. There is a delay of 148 days in filing the present appeal ... raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. “The Order of the Ld Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal ("CIT(A) (National Faceless Appeal Centra "NFAC") is erroneous and bad in law 2. The NFAC erred in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant which is against the principles