“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

Gunjan Rungta, Kushinagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Kushinagar

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

ITA 50/VNS/2022[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri. Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2012-13 Gunjan Rungta V. The Income Tax Officer Onkar Vatika Colony Ward 2(4) Padrauna, Kushinagar (U.P) Kushinagar Tan/Pan:Agmpr5334G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Ashish Bansal, Advocate Respondent By: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R. O R D E R This Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against Order Dated 15.06.2022, Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Nfac) For Assessment Year 2012-13. 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 During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Had Purchased An Immovable Property For A Consideration Of Rs.30,50,000/-. To Examine This Transaction, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened Under Section 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act’) After Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. However, There Was No Response From The Side Of The Assessee To The Notice Under Section 148 Of The Act. Thereafter, The

For Appellant: Shri Ashish Bansal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt Amandeep Kaur, D.R

Section 147Section 148Section 69

This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against order dated 15.06.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) for Assessment Year 2012-13. 2.0 The brief facts of the case are that the assessee had not filed the return of income for the year under consideration ... penalty proceedings under sections 271(1)(b) and 271(1)(c) of the Act, separately. 2.2 Aggrieved, the Assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC and submitted before it that the assessee had taken a loan of Rs.10 lakhs from Smt. Minakshi Diswania on 02.09.2011 and ITA No.50/VNS/2022 Page

Jai Prakash Singhania ( HUF ), Ranchi vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1, Ranchi

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

ITA 261/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayjai Prakash Singhania (Huf), D.C.I.T., 5, North Market Road, Upper Bazar, Circle-1, Vs. Ranchi-834001. Ranchi. Pan No. Aachs 4271 D Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in appeal No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10553/2019-20 dated 25/03/2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. None represented on behalf of the assessee. However, an adjournment application has been filed, which reads

Maan Promoters Pvt. Ltd, Ranchi vs. ACIT, C.C.2, Ranchi

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

ITA 232/RAN/2025[21-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 31.03.2025 for the assessment year 2021-2022. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR appeared

Rita Singh, Deoghar vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Deoghar

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

ITA 220/RAN/2025[17-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 05.05.2025 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR appeared

Umesh Kumar Singh, Ranchi vs. ITO, Ward - 3 (1), Ranchi

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

ITA 217/RAN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vinay Jalan, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 23.10.2024 for the assessment year 2017-2018. 2. Shri Vinay Jalan, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR appeared

Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Dumka vs. ACIT, Circle-3(1), Deoghar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 163/RAN/2025[12-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayi.T.A. No.163/Ran/2025 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Adhunik Akshat Udyog Pvt. Ltd……………............................……….……Appellant Industrial Area, Babupur, Muffasil Thana Dumka, Jharkhand – 814101. [Pan: Aabca4896Q] Vs. Acit, Circle-3(1), Deoghar…...…..….…..….........……........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Sushil Pransukha, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : August 28, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Sonjoy Sarma: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)”] Dated 11.03.2025 Under Section 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) For The Assessment Year 2012–13. 2. Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Filed Its Return Of Income For Ay 2012–13 Declaring Total Income Of ₹2,57,551. The Case Was Reopened Under Section 147 On The Ground That The Assessee Had Raised Share Capital & Share Premium From Certain Entities, Whose Financial Capacity & Genuineness Of Investment Remained Unexplained. During Assessment, The Ao Noted That The Assessee Had Introduced Share Capital Of ₹37,50,000 From The Following Four Private Limited Companies:

Section 131Section 147Section 250Section 68

pronouncing the order : October 10, 2025 ORDER Per Sonjoy Sarma, Judicial Member: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] dated 11.03.2025 under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the “Act”) for the assessment year 2012–13. 2. Facts

Anil Kumar Sinha, Ranchi vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Ranchi

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

ITA 376/RAN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayanil Kumar Sinha, I.T.O., Patho House, Kanti Ganesh Market, Ward-1(1), Vs. S.N. Road Chowk, Upper Bazar, Ranchi. Ranchi-834001. Pan No. Bggps 1888 B Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 264

BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10225915 dated 23/08/2024 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. Shri Vinay Khandelwal, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR appeared

All India Womens Conference, Jamshedpur vs. ITO, Exemption Ward, Jamshedpur

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

ITA 375/RAN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Ratnesh Nandan Sahayall India Womens Conference, I.T.O., Telco Mahila Sharan, Telco Colony, Exemption Ward, Vs. Jamshedpur-831004 (Jharkhand) Jamshedpur. Pan No. Aaata 3977 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

BENCH 1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi in Appeal No. CIT(A), Ranchi/10313/2018-19 dated 28/05/2024 for the A.Y. 2016-17. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld AR appeared for the assessee and Shri Khubchand T Pandya, Sr.DR appeared

Subal Chandra Nag, Dhanbad vs. ACIT Circle-2, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 93/RAN/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 12.10.2022 & 01.02.2023 for the assessment years 2014-2015 & 2015-2016. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand

Subal Chandra Nag, Dhanbad vs. ACIT, Circle-2, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 92/RAN/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Dulu Mahato, Dhanbad vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle-1, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 75/RAN/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)

Bench : These two appeals are filed by the assessee against the separate orders passed by the ld.CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 28.02.2023 for the assessment years 2012-2013 & 2013- 2014. 2. Shri Devesh Poddar, ld. AR appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Khubchand

Dulu Mahato, Dhanbad vs. DCIT/ACIT Circle-1, Dhanbad

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 74/RAN/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi10 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATNESH NANDAN SAHAY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Devesh Poddar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Khubchand T. Pandya, Sr.DR

Section 133(6)

Hamid Ali, Rohtas vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 357/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraita Nos.356 & 357/Pat/2025 Assessment Years: 2018-19 Hamid Ali…..……………..……………………….……….……….……Appellant C/O Gulam Murtaza Zakki Shaheed, Sasaram, Rohtas, Bihar – 821115. [Pan: Atppa8563N] Vs. Ito, Ward-3(4), Sasaram.…………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A.K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv. & Shri Rakesh Kumar, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 06, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Both Dated 12.12.2024 Passed By Nfac, Delhi Arising Out Of The Orders Dated 23.02.2021 & 23.08.2021 Passed U/S 143(3) & U/S 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”] Respectively For Assessment Year 2018-19. Ita No.356/Pat/2025 Relates To Quantum Order Whereas Ita No.357/Pat/2025 Relates To Penalty Order.

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

ORDER Per Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member: Both the appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the separate orders both dated 12.12.2024 passed by NFAC, Delhi arising out of the orders dated 23.02.2021 and 23.08.2021 passed u/s 143(3) and u/s 270A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred

Hamid Ali, Rohtas vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (4), Sasaram

In the result, ITA No.356/Pat/2025 is partly allowed for statistical purposes and ITA No

ITA 356/PAT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 50C(2)(a)Section 53C

Shailendra Kumar, Gaya vs. Income Tax Officer, Gaya

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

ITA 100/PAT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Patna10 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2016-17 Shailendra Kumar………………...…………………….……….……….……Appellant Nutan Nagar, Beldari Tola, Gaya Sadar, Gaya – 823001. [Pan: Atgpk5211Q] Vs. Ito, Gaya …………..…..………………………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri A. K. Rastogi, Sr. Adv., Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shir Ashwani Kr. Singal, Jcit, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : October 09, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : October 10, 2025 Order Per Madhumita Roy: The Instant Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.02.2025 Passed By Nfac Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As The “Act”].

Section 250

ORDER Per Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.02.2025 passed by NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as the “Act”]. 2. This matter relates to addition made by the Assessing Officer

Syed Nazim Moinuddin Quazi, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 503/NAG/2025[2020 - 2021]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesayed Nazim Maoinuddin Quazi, Pltono.11–A & House Noquadri Enclave, Opp. Suri Laws Behind Police Line Takli ……………. Appellant Nagpur 440 013, Maharashtra. Pan–Aaapq2442A V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–2(3), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By:Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Ms.Alfiya Rozie, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 12/02/2025, passed by the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, under section 143(3)r.w.s144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act"). The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:– “1. Whether

Abid Mustafa Khan, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward-2(3), Nagpur

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

ITA 502/NAG/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleabid Mustafa Khan, 301, Mayfair Residency, Raj Nagar Opp. Green Park, Nagpur 440 013, ……………. Appellant Maharashtra. Pan – Aqipk9595G V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(2), Nagpur, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri K.K. Thakkar. A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 69A

assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 11/06/2025, passed by the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, u/sec 147 r.w.s 144and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2015–16. The assessee has raised the following grounds

Prashant Arvind Tayade, Amravati vs. ITO Ward 5, Amravati

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

ITA 467/NAG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprashant Arvind Tayade, Plot No.33, Parakashta Jalpurti Colony, Ymv Road ……………. Appellant Amravati 444604, Maharashtra. Pan–Agtpt6782D V/S Income Tax Officer Ward–5, Ito Building, ……………. Respondent Saturna, Amravati-444607, Maharashtra. Assessee By: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.R. Revenue By :Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Bhushan Lathiya.A.RFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr. DR

Section 250Section 68

assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 30/05/2025, passed by the learned CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, u/sec 147 r.w.s. 143(3) and sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2017–18. The assessee has raised following

Prakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Koradi Kamptee, Nagpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(4), Nagpur

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

ITA 461/NAG/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleprakash Sheshrao Wankhede, Khaprikoradi, Ward No.6 Near Hanuman Mandir Tehsil Kamptee, Koradi (Nv) ……………. Appellant Nagpur -441 111, Maharashtra. Pan–Abypw7048B V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(4), Nagpur Assessee By: None Revenue By : Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surjit Kumar Saha, Sr.DR

Section 54F

assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 23/07/2024, passed by the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, u/sec 147r.w.s144 and u/sec 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2015–16. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Sudam Kisanrao Wani, Nagpur vs. ITO Ward 3(1), Nagpur

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

ITA 460/NAG/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur10 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalesudam Kisanrao Wani, Plot No.86A, Vitthal Nagar–Ii Hudkeshwar, Maiginagar ……………. Appellant Nagpur -440 034, Maharashtra. Pan- Aaypw9239K V/S Income Tax Officer ……………. Respondent Ward–3(1), Nagpur Assessee By: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.R. Revenue By : Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.Dr

For Appellant: Shri.Naresh Jakhotia.A.RFor Respondent: Shri.Surjit Kumar Saha.Sr.DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69

assessee has filed the appeal against the order dated 30/05/2025, passed by the CIT(A)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi, u/sec 147 r.w.s. 144 and 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (for short "the Act") for the A.Y. 2019–20. The assessee has raised the following grounds