Appeal challenges NFAC order for 2011-12 tax year. Issues: notice validity, jurisdiction, deduction, judicial precedents, delay, assessment discrepancies.

The appeal challenging the order passed by NFAC, Delhi for the 2011-12 assessment year was heard ex-parte as the assessee was absent. The appellant raised issues regarding the validity of the notice under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, jurisdiction under Section 147, approval under Section 151, disallowance of deduction under Section 54F, consideration of judicial precedents, delay in filing the appeal, treatment of properties as a single unit, discrepancies in assessment, and levying of interest under Sections 234B and 234C.

---

---

Issues:
1. Correctness of the order passed by NFAC, Delhi acting as First Appellate Authority for the 2011-12 assessment year.
2. Validity of notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
3. Assumption of jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
4. Approval under Section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961.
5. Disallowance of deduction under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961.
6. Consideration of judicial precedents from different High Courts.
7. Delay in filing the appeal.
8. Treatment of two adjoining properties as a single unit for deduction u/s 54 of the Act.
9. Discrepancies in the assessment and disallowance of deductions.
10. Levying of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961.

Analysis:
1. The appeal challenged the order passed by NFAC, Delhi acting as the First Appellate Authority for the 2011-12 assessment year. The appellant contended that the order was erroneous, invalid, and unjustified. The appeal was heard ex-parte as the assessee was absent despite multiple opportunities.

2. The issue of the validity of the notice issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was raised. The appellant argued that the notice was issued without proper verification, application of mind, or inquiry as it wrongly stated that the assessee had not filed a return of income for the relevant year. The appellant claimed the notice was invalid.

3. The jurisdiction under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 was questioned by the appellant. It was argued that the assumption of jurisdiction was unwarranted as the appellant had fully disclosed all material facts necessary for assessment. The appellant contended that the assessment was invalid in the eyes of the law.

4. The appellant challenged the approval granted by the Ld. PCIT under Section 151 of the I.T. Act, 1961, claiming it was given without an independent application of mind. The appellant argued that the approval lacked proper consideration.

5. Disallowance of deduction under Section 54F of the IT Act, 1961 was contested by the appellant. The appellant claimed that the deduction was wrongly disallowed without verifying the facts and considering their submissions. The appellant sought the allowance of the deduction.

6. The appellant raised the issue of the First Appellate Authority ignoring judicial precedents from different High Courts, including the jurisdictional High Court of Punjab and Haryana. The appellant argued that relevant precedents were not considered in dismissing the appeal.

7. The delay in filing the appeal was addressed, with the Registry pointing out a four-day delay. The delay was condoned after considering the appellant's explanation and finding no advantage gained by the delay.

8. The treatment of two adjoining properties as a single unit for deduction under Section 54 of the Act was a key issue. The appellant claimed that the properties should be considered a single unit based on settled positions, which was not accepted by the authorities.

9. Discrepancies in the assessment and disallowance of deductions were highlighted. The appellant contested the disallowance of deductions and the assessment made by the authorities, seeking a reevaluation of the facts and a proper assessment.

10. The levying of interest under Sections 234B and 234C of the IT Act, 1961 was challenged by the appellant. The appellant argued against the imposition of interest and sought a review of the decision.

---