“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

Avinissery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1), Thrissur

ITA 569/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80Section 80P

appeals preferred by the Assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-2017, both challenging the order, dated 27/09/2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as 'the **NFAC**'] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as 'the **Act**'] whereby the NFAC ... which is accompanied by application seeking condonation of delay and affidavit supporting the same. - 3. We note that the impugned Order was passed by NFAC on 27/09/2024. The specified period for filing appeal expired on 26/11/2024. The present appeal was filed after a delay of around 8 months. We have

Avinissery Service Co-Operative Bank Ltd, Thrissur vs. ITO, Ward 2(1), Thrissur

ITA 556/COCH/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Alan P DevFor Respondent: Smt. Leena Lal, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 5Section 80Section 80P

appeals preferred by the Assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year 2016-2017, both challenging the order, dated 27/09/2024, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the NFAC’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the NFAC ... delay and ITA No.556 & 569/COCH/2025 Assessment Year 2016-2017 affidavit supporting the same. 3. We note that the impugned Order was passed by NFAC on 27/09/2024. The specified period for filing appeal expired on 26/11/2024. The present appeal was filed after a delay of around 8 months. We have heard

Thottipal Service Cooperative Bank, Thrissur vs. ITO Ward 2(5), Thrissur

ITA 552/COCH/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Smt. Divya RavindranFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Kumar Das

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 250Section 69ASection 80P(2)(d)

Judicial Member: 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 23/05/2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Gokulam Seva Nyas, 1 Resham Kendra, Gram Khajuriya Sanwer vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Room No:201, II Floor, Reac, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 83/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Gokulam Seva Nyas, 1 Resham Kendra, Gram Khajuriya Sanwerc vs. CIT Exemption Bhopal, Room No:201, II Floor, Reac, Bhopal

Appeals are allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 82/IND/2025[2023-24]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2023-24

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani

Section 12ASection 80G

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI

Sandeep Gujrati, Indore vs. ITO-5(1), Indore

Appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 298/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M. Joshi

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 48

sez1/O RDER Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by order of first-appeal dated 05.03.2025 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 06.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-5(1), Indore [“AO”] u/s 147 r.w.s

Katrathal Gram Sewa Sahkari Samiti Limited, Katrathal vs. ITO Ward 1 Sikar, Sikar

The appeal is dismissed

ITA 1001/JPR/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur27 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

For Appellant: Sh. Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 144BSection 147Section 147rSection 148Section 148ASection 151Section 234ASection 250

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुर न्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES, "SMC" JAIPUR श्री राठौड़ कमलेश जयन्तभाई

Saryu Prasad, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer-5(4), Barabanki

In the result, the ase’s appeal is partly allowed

ITA 490/LKW/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2016-17 Saryu Prasad V. The Income Tax Officer 5(4) Bhanpur Barabanki Mahulara, Ramsamethi Ghat Barbanki (U.P) Tan/Pan: (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.05.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2016-17. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading in food grains and their ... proceedings under sections 271F, 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. The NFAC partly allowed the appeal of the assessee by holding that to safeguard the interests of the Revenue, 10% of the total cash credits

Mukesh Kumar Singh, Hardoi vs. Income Tax Officer-3(2), Hardoi-/NFAC

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

ITA 485/LKW/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2020-21 Mukesh Kumar Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 3 (2) Sadhinawa Uchwal Hardoi-1/Nfac Hardoi (U.P) Tan/Pan:Bxkps8596P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.05.2025, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Was Engaged In The Business Of Recovery Of Loans & Emi. The Assessee Had Filed His Return Of Income For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.18,40,681/-. Subsequently, The Assessee Revised His Return Of Income On 23.11.2020, Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.12,17,600/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny Under Cass For The Reason That The "Taxable Income Shown In Revised Return Is Less Than The Taxable Income Shown In The Original Return & Large Refund Has Been Claimed (Business Itr) Reduction Of Income In

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 144Section 144B

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 27.05.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2020-21. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of recovery of loans ... also initiated penalty proceedings under sections 270A and 272A(1)(d) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC. However, the appeal before the NFAC came to be dismissed ex-parte qua the assessee. ITA No.485/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 2.3 Now, the assessee

Ashish Khemka HUF, Lucknow vs. DCIT / ACIT-1, Lucknow New, Lucknow

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

ITA 483/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2013-14 Ashish Khemka Huf V. Dcit/Acit-1 702, Shalimar Titanium Lucknow - New Vibhuti Khand Gomti Nagar, Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aaeha6967L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Samrat Chandra, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 132ASection 144Section 147Section 148Section 69A

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.06.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the e-filed its return of income for the year under consideration ... separately. ITA No.483/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred appeal before the NFAC, which dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reason of there being delay of 148 days in filing of the appeal before the NFAC. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging

Devika Singh, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Lucknow

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

ITA 479/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2017-18 Devika Singh V. The Income Tax Officer 1(1) B-1529, Indira Nagar Lucknow - New Lucknow (U.P) Tan/Pan:Cmips8743J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sandeep Kumar, Fca Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Kumar, FCAFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 271ASection 44ASection 68

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against separate order dated 02.01.2025, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2017- 18. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of trading of construction material. The assessee ... this Tribunal challenging the order of the Ld. First Appellate Authority, by raising the following grounds of appeal: 1. Because the Id. CIT(A), NFAC ought not to have passed the appellate order ex-parte and dispose off the appeal without hearing the assessee. ITA No.479/LKW/2025 Page

Virat Construction, Shahjahanpur vs. ITO-1(4) Shahjahanpur-1, Shahjahanpur

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

ITA 477/LKW/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2018-19 Virat Construction V. The Ito-I(4) Tarin Bahadurganj Shahjahanpur-1 Shahjahanpur (U.P) Tan/Pan:Aapfv3897H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R. O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.R.N. Shukla, D.R

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 270A

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against separate order dated 18.11.2024, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for Assessment Year 2018- 19. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee was engaged in the business of extraction and sale of soil under ... appeal of the assessee and confirmed the order of the AO. 2.3 Now, the assessee has approached this Tribunal challenging the order of the NFAC, by raising the following grounds of appeal: ITA No.477/LKW/2025 Page 3 of 5 1. Because on the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Om Prakash Singh, Lucknow vs. The Income Tax Officer -1(4), Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 777/LKW/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatom Prakash Singh V. The Income Tax Officer- J-166 Opp City School 1(4), Lucknow Raibareily Road, South City Pratyaksh Kar Bhawan, Lucknow-226001. Lucknow-226001. Pan:Aidps7478M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Swaran Singh, C.A. Respondent By: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 27 10 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 27 10 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Swaran Singh, C.AFor Respondent: Shri R. R. N. Shukla, Addl. CIT(DR)

Section 139(1)Section 154Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 19.08.2024 pertaining to the assessment year 2021-22. 2. The present appeal is barred by 63 days. The assessee has filed application seeking ... Appeal on 16.01.2025 with before the Hon’ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Lucknow Bench against the Appellate Order passed by the Ld. C.L.T.(A), NFAC. 6) The Appellant filed an Application under Vivad se Vishwas Scheme on 28.12.2024 and the same has been accepted by the Department and Form

Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 976/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 976/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Nirmaljit Singh Khatra, The Ito, बनाम 3010, Sector 38-D, Ward 2(1), Chandigarh Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Acepk0729N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Anil Arora, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 28.06.2024 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Anil Arora, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Ranjit Kaur, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148A

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 28.06.2024 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred

Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward-5(5), Chandigarh

In the result, Assessee’s appeal is allowed for Statistical Purposes

ITA 789/CHANDI/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laliet Kumar & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 789/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Sh. Kuldip Singh, The Ito, बनाम 3386, Sector 46C, Ward 5(5), Chandigarh 160047 Chandigarh Vs. "थायी लेखा सं./ Pan No: Bphps0923R अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Physical Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. Cit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am : Appeal In This Case Has Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 29.04.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi Pertaining To A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR

Section 148Section 69A

been filed by the assessee against the order dated 29.04.2025 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2012-13. 2. Grounds of appeal are as under: 1. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case ... Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. CIT (A), Chandigarh- 2/10066/2020-21 has erred in passing 789-Chd-2025 Kuldip Singh, Chandigarh 2 order dtd. 04.07.2024 in contravention of provisions of S. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act"). 2. That on facts, circumstances and legal

Pooja Kansal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, G.Garh, Gobindgarh

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 225/CHANDI/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita Nos. 224 & 225/Chd/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2016-17 & 2017-18 Pooja Kansal, The Ito, बनाम Kansla Singla & Ward -1, Associates, Gobindgarh Vs. Sco 80-81, Sector 17-C, Chandigarh "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Abypk5904G अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. T.N. Singla, Ca राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Kusum Kashyap, Cit Dr (Virtual Mode) सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 12.08.2025 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 27.10.2025 आदेश/Order Per Krinwant Sahay, Am: Both The Appeals Pertaining To A.Ys. 2016-17 & 2017- 18 Have Been Filed By The Assessee Against The Separate

For Appellant: Sh. T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Kashyap, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 65A

against the separate 2 224 & 225-Chd-2025 – Pooja Kansal, Chandigarh orders, each dated 18.12.2024, passed by Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi. 2. Since the grounds of appeal and the issue involved in both the appeals are similar except the quantum of amount involved, therefore, they

Pooja Kansal, Chandigarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, G.Garh, Gobindgarh

In the result, the Assessee’s appeal is allowed

ITA 224/CHANDI/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Sh. T.N. Singla, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Kusum Kashyap, CIT DR

Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 65A

Income Tax Officer, Ward -5, Panchkula, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector- vs. Navdesh Infratech, Panchkula

The appeal stands dismissed

ITA 124/CHANDI/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh27 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.124/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2018-19) Ito M/S Navdesh Infratech बनाम/ Ward-5 Scf No. 11, New Grain Market Vs. Panchkula Sector-20, Haryana-134117 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aaofn-9989-K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Assessee By : Shri Dhruv Goel (Ca) – Ld. Ar Revenue By : Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (Cit) – Ld. Dr (Virtual) सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 27-10-2025 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 20.11.2025 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2018-19 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 22-12-2023 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 144 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act On 19-04-2021. The Sole Issue That Fall For Our Consideration Is Twin Additions As Made By Ld. Ao U/S 69A For Rs.970.13 Lacs & Rs.501.08 Lacs Respectively. The Ground Raised By The Revenue Read As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Dhruv Goel (CA) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhishek Pal Garg (CIT) – Ld. DR (Virtual)

Section 144Section 69A

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2018-19 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 22-12-2023 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer [AO] u/s 144 r.w.s. 144B

Shivam Multispeciality and Accident Care Centre Pvt. Ltd., Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

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

ITA 696/PUN/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.696/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shivam Multispecialty & Accident Care Income Tax Officer, Centre Pvt. Ltd., Ward – 6(1), Pune Opp. Manali Resort, Near Dsk Dream City, Vs. Next To Loni Kalbhor Toll Naka, Pune-Solapur Mumbai Bypass Road, Fursungi, Pune-412308, Maharashtra Pan : Aapcs5482A अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Dhiraj Dandgaval Department By : Shri Akhilesh Srivastva Date Of Hearing : 06-08-2025 Date Of 27-10-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj DandgavalFor Respondent: Shri Akhilesh Srivastva

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 68

opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. The Ld. DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 7. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted fact that ... delay in filing of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed the same on the ground that there was no reasonable cause shown by the assessee for delay in filing of the appeal. It is the submission of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee that the delay

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jalgaon vs. Taradevi Ratanlal Bafna, Jalgaon

ITA 498/PUN/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune27 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

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

For Appellant: S/Shri Suchek Anchaliya and Tushar NagoriFor Respondent: Shri Amit Bobde, CIT

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 153A

PANDA, VP: ITA Nos.1555/PUN/2024 & 1560/PUN/2024 filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated 28.05.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15 respectively. ITA No.1561/PUN/2024 filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated ... NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2015-16. ITA No.1565/PUN/2024 filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 03.06.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi for assessment year 2018-19. ITA Nos.497/PUN/2025 & 498/PUN/2025 filed by the Revenue are directed against the separate orders dated