“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

Ramvira Exim (India) Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3505/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Samyak Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A

MEMBER : 1. These appeals are filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 28.03.2025 for AY 2018-19 affirming the penalty order dated 19.01.2022 passed u/s 270AAC(1), order dated

Ramvira Exim (India)Opinion Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward-21(1), Delhi

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

ITA 3504/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sudhir Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Samyak Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Jaiswal, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270A

Rajeev Goswami, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 5(2)(2), Noida

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1284/DEL/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Om Prakash, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Avdhesh

Ravi Kumar, Anangpur, Faridabad vs. Assessing Officer, Delhi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1280/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Oct 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara & Sh. Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

For Appellant: Sh. A. K. Tyagi, ARFor Respondent: Sh. D. S. Sidhu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘C’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. Satbeer Singh Godara, Judicial Member & Sh. Avdhesh

Rameshwar Dayal, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Gwalior

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

ITA 85/AGR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Agra30 Sept 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh(Through Virtual Hearing) Rameshwar Dayal, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward No. 2, Chitrkoot Ward-3(2), Colony, Near Fojawali Gwalior School, Kotputli, Jaipur, 303 108, Rajasthan (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Afepa7981H Assessee By : Shri Devang Gargiega, Adv Revenue By: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 18/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 30/09/2025

For Appellant: Shri Devang Gargiega, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

appeal in ITA No. 85/AGR/2025 for AY 2011-12, arises out of the order of the ld. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC, in short] dated 23.12.2022 against the order of assessment passed u/s 143(3)/144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Sandeep Kumar Singh, Singrauli vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Singrauli

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

ITA 7/JAB/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2020-21 Sandeep Kumar Singh, Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax B. 8/116, Sect. 15, Nigahi Colony, (Appeals) Nigahi, Singrauli Pan:Bvips2456Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, Adv Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per Nikhil Choudhary, A.M. This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac Dated 30.09.2024, Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Against The Orders Of The Ld. Ao Dated 23.09.2022, Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. Because, The Order Of Learned Assessing Officer As Well As The The Learned Cit(Appeals) Is Based On Incorrect Revised I.T. Return. 2. Because, The Income Offered U/S. 56 & Deduction Claimed U/S. 57 Of The Income Tax In Revised Lt. Return Does Not Relates To The Assessee. 3. Because, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case & In Law, The Learned Assessing Officer & The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Making Disallowance / Addition Of Rs.51,42,446/-. 4. Because, The Learned Cit(Appeals) Has Erred In Facts In Giving Finding That "Entire Tds Credit Of Rs.81,729/- Relatable To Total Receipts Of Rs.56,61,867/- (Rs.55,09,367 + Rs.1,52,500) Is Claimed In Revised Return. Thus, It Is Clear That Whatever Income Admitted In Revised Return Is Not Randomly Admitted But Based On 16A Certificate Issued By Deductor M/S Gmr Infrastructure Ltd.

For Appellant: Sh. Anoop Kumar Vishwakarma, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 56Section 57Section 58

NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC dated 30.09.2024, wherein the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee against the orders of the ld. AO dated 23.09.2022, passed under section 144 of the Income

Asha Baderia, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1(1), Jabalpur

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

ITA 16/JAB/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Revenue byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 132(1)Section 143(3)Section 153ASection 250

Aggrieved with the said addition, the assessee went in appeal before the ld. CIT(A)-1, Jabalpur. Subsequently, her appeal was migrated to the NFAC and taken up for disposal by the Addl./JCIT/CIT(A), Nasik. The ld. Addl./JCIT(A) records that he three notices to the assessee

Jagveer Singh, Banda vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Satna

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

ITA 11/JAB/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudharya.Y. 2018-19 Jagveer Singh, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Village Bhiyamau Khohi Thana, Ward-1, Satna Baraunda, Satna, M.P. Pan:Eneps0024R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.A. Revenue By: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.08.2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30.09.2025 O R D E R Per 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 Orders Passed By The Ld. Assessing Officer Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act On 20.03.2023. The Grounds Of Appeal Are As Under:- “1. The Ex-Party Order Passed U/S Rs. 144 For Ay 2018-19 On 20.03.2023 By Faceless Centre Holding Cash Deposits To The Extent Of Rs. 1,76,85,400/-Deposited In Bank Accounts As Unexplained Cash & Thereby Making Addition Of 1,76,85,400/- Is Wholly Illegal, Unlawful & Against The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Ex-Party Order Of Learned Cit(A) Is Bad In Law & Liable To Be Quashed For Non Consideration Of Material On Record & Additions Made Of Rs 1,76,85,400/- Is Illegal In Want Of Non-Application Of Principles Of Natural Justice 3. Without Prejudice:-The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Has Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Party & Thereby Confirming The Order Passed By Assessing Officer. The Ex-Party Order Passed By Learned Assessing Officer Being Bad In Law & Void-Ab-Inito Was Required To Be Quashed Instead Of Being Confirmed

For Appellant: Sh. Dhiraj Ghai, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. N.M. Prasad, Sr. DR

Section 147

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 orders passed by the ld. Assessing Officer under section 147 r.w.s. 144 of the Income Tax Act on 20.03.2023. The grounds

Jainam Group Chhindwara, Chhindwara vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi

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

ITA 83/JAB/2024[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Sh. Kul Bharat & Sh. Nikhil Choudhary

For Appellant: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 250Section 68

BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.83/JAB/2024 Α.Υ. 2013-14 Jainam Group Chhindwara VS. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Sh. Rahul Bardia, C.A. Revenue by: Sh. Alok Bhura, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 18.09.2025 Date of pronouncement ... NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, A.M. ORDER This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the orders of the ld. CIT(A), NFAC on 5.03.2024, dismissing in limine the appeal of the assessee against the orders passed by the ld. AO under section 147 r.w.s. 144 on 25.03.2022. The grounds of appeal

Punjab House, Jabalpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1)

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 54/JAB/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2017-18 Punjab House V. Income Tax Officer, 1, Star Complex, Opp Dominos, Ward-2(1) Jyoti Talkies Road, Napier Town Annexe Building, Aayakar Jabalpur, Madhya Pradesh- Bhawan, Napier Town, 482001. Jabalpur-Madhya Pradesh-482001. Pan: Aaqfp3056R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. Advocate. Respondent By: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri G. N. Purohit, Sr. AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Alok Bhura, Sr. DR

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 22.02.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That

Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Katni vs. Aditya Agrawal, Katni

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 200/JAB/2024[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur30 Sept 2025

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year: 2016-17 Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 V. Aditya Agrawal Near New Collectorate, Jhinjhiri- C/O. Shri Ram Food 483501. Product, Industrial Area Bargawan-483501. Pan:Amepa0405H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Rahul Badia, Ca Respondent By: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. Dr-1 Date Of Hearing: 18 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Rahul Badia, CAFor Respondent: Shri N. M. Prasad, Sr. DR-1

Section 10(38)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 68

VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, by the Revenue, is directed against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 30.10.2024, pertaining to the assessment year 2016-17. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Whether in the facts

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 8/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

These are appeals preferred by the assessee against the action of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.03.2024, for the assessment year 2010-11. Since the identical issues and grounds have been raised for adjudication, all these appeals were heard together

Anurag Yadav, Kannauj vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward-4(2)(3), Kannauj, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 78/ALLD/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Anurag Yadav V. The Income Tax Officer, Mahmoodpur Keerat, Nigoh Ward-4(2)(3) Khas, Chhibramau Kannauj, Income Tax Office, Kannauj-209721. Kannauj, Kannauj- 209721. Pan:Adbpy5023B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: (Application) Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 68

SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 25.02.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. That

Raju Singh Pal, Bindki, Fatehpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 2(4), Fatehpur

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

ITA 73/ALLD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2016-17 Raju Singh Pal V. The Income Tax Officer, Kora Jahanabad, Bindki, Ward-2(4) Fatehpur-212635. Fatehpur-212601. Pan:Cnopp1389L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: (Application) Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 11 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 50CSection 56(2)(viib)

SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18.02.2025 for the assessment year 2016-17. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. Because in any view

Gyan Vikas Samiti, Ambedkar Nagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ambedkar Nagar

In the result, the impugned orders of the Ld

ITA 7/ALLD/2025[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. CIT(DR)

Section 10Section 249(4)Section 253(3)

Madhu Dubey, Allahabad vs. Dc/Ac-1(1), Allahabad, Mg Marg Allahabad

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

ITA 58/ALLD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2014-15 Madhu Dubey V. Dc/Ac-1(1) 657A/1, Jamuna Nagar, Chak Mg Marg, Allahabad- Raghunath, Naini-211008. 211001. Pan:Asipd8489J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.A. Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 09 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Naman Agrawal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.09.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1 Market value as per registration authority

Jiyauddin Khan, Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO 1(4), Maharajganj, Uttar Pradesh

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

ITA 139/ALLD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Jiyauddin Khan V. Ito-1(4) Bhitauli Bazar, Maharjganj, Aayakar Bhawan, Maharajganj-273302. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Bafpk3621P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 24 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 249(2)Section 69A

SUBHASH MALGURIA, J.M.: This appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 29.01.2025 for the assessment year 2015-16. The grounds of appeal of the assessee are as under: - “1. Because on the facts and circumstances

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, Ghaziabad vs. Dc/ACIT-2, Allahabad

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

ITA 138/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. National Faceless Limited Assessment Centre 17, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad- Delhi. 201001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shervani Sugar Syndicate V. Dc/Acit-2, Allahabad Limited Office Of The Assistant C/O 17, Navyug Market, Commissioner Of Income Ghaziabad-201001. Tax, Allahabad, Allahabad-211001. Pan:Aadcs3658L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Madhav Kapur Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 23 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 253(3)

No.137/ALLD/2025, pertaining to the A.Y. 2012-13, the assessee is aggrieved by this order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 14.02.2025 challenging the same by raising the following grounds of appeal: - “1. That the Ld. CIT(A) erred both on the facts

Shervani Sugar Syndicate Limited, C/O B. K. Kapur Co vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 137/ALLD/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Madhav KapurFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 253(3)

Ramanand Gupta, Maharajganj vs. ITO 1(4) Maharajganj, Maharajganj

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

ITA 122/ALLD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad30 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Ramanand Gupta V. Ito-1(4) Main Road, Maharajganj, Uttar Aaykar Bhawan, Pradesh-273301. Maharajganj, Maharajganj-273301. Pan:Aippg1773R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: (Application) Respondent By: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 08 09 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 30 09 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: (Application)For Respondent: Shri A. K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250(6)

MALGURIA, J.M.: 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 24.04.2025, pertaining to the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessment order in this case was passed