“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

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Needful Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 3348/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

appeals have been filed by the Revenue and they are directed against the separate orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi (in short „Ld.CIT(A)‟) and both relate to AY. 2012-13. The appeal numbered as ITA No. 3348/Mum/2023 relates to the original assessment order

Dy.CIT, Circle-7(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Needful Dealcom Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the Revenue are dismissed

ITA 2940/MUM/2023[2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Aug 2024

Bench: Justice (Retd.) Shri C.V. Bhadang, Hon’Ble & Shri B.R. Baskaran, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri J.P. Bairagra &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

Virender Singh Rana, Tiz Hazari New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3470/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Sudhir Pareekita No:- 3470/Del/2023 (Assessment Year- 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 151Section 234ASection 271(1)(c)Section 68

Pronouncement : 05.08.2024 ORDER PER SUDHIR PAREEK, JM This appeal preferred by the assessee / appellant against the order dated 12.10.2023 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) / CIT(A) pertaining to Assessment Year 2012-13, on the following grounds of appeal: Page 1 of 6 ITA No.- 3470/Del/2023 Virender Singh Rana

Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya, Palanpur vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1 Previously Ward-5, Palanpur

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

ITA 899/AHD/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Ahmedabad Bench, Ahmedabad , Which Has Arisen From The Appellate Order Dated 22-05-2023 Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1)

For Appellant: Shri S.N. Divatia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 147Section 234ASection 234BSection 250Section 253(3)Section 69A

Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1053040290(1) I.T.A No. 899/Ahd/2023 A.Y. 2011-12 Page No. 2 Sardarbhai Ramsangbhai Dhuliya v. ITO passed by ld. CIT(A),NFAC, New Delhi u/s 250 of the Income- tax Act, 1961, which in turn has arisen from the assessment order dated 29-12-2018 passed by learned

Baban Tukaram Khade, Nashik vs. ITO, Ward 3(1), Nashik

ITA 941/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune02 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2017-18 Mr Baban Tukaram Khade, At Post Village Jakhori, Dist Nashik – 422 102. Pan: Dkopk4540Q . . . . . . . Appellant V/S The Income Tax Officer, Ward -3(1), Nashik. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : Mr Sanket Joshi [Ld. Ar’] Revenue By : Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. Dr’] Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 01/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 02/08/2024 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; This Appeal Of The Assessee Challenges The Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2023-24/1059661545(1) Dt. 12/01/2024 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] By The National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘Nfac’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3), Nashik [‘Ao’ Hereinafter] For Assessment Year 2017-18 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter]; 2. In The Course Of Hybrid Hearing, The Ld. Ar Mr Joshi Without Adverting To Facts & Merits Of The Case, At The Outset Has Candidly Invited Our Attention To The Impugned Order & Submitted That, The Impugned First Appellate Order 12/01/2024 Was Communicated To The Assessee Online Through The Web Portal.

For Appellant: Mr Sanket Joshi [Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Umesh Phade [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 282A

Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1059661545(1) dt. 12/01/2024 passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [‘the Act’ hereinafter] by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] which in turn arisen out of order of assessment passed u/s 143(3) of the Act by the Income Tax Officer, Ward ... 941/PUN/2024 AY: 2017-18 Though this impugned order bears the DIN number but it does neither signed digitally nor physically by the Ld. NFAC. An unsigned order ceases to give any cause of action to both the rival parties. However the assessee should not be saddled with liability

Modella Caretaker Centre, Siliguri vs. ACIT(OSD), Ward-2(1), Siliguri

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

ITA 75/KOL/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 10Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 40A(2)(a)

assessee for the assessment year 2010-11 is directed against the order dated 17.11.2023 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax, Appeals, NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘the ‘ld. CIT(A)’]. Brief facts of the case are that assessee is a society registered 2. under WB Registration

Dhirendra Nath Das, Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Durgapur

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

ITA 491/KOL/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Rajesh Kumari.T.A No.491/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Dhirendra Nath Das.…....………………………… ........................……Appellant C/O Jain Vinod & Associates, 41A, Ajc Bose Road, Suite No.613, 6Th Floor, Kol-700017. [Pan: Adgpd9102P] Vs. Ito, Ward-1(3), Durgapur.................…................…........……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri V. K. Jain, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri P. P. Barman, Addl. Cit-Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : July 25, 2024 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : August 02, 2024 आदेश / Order संजय गग", "या"यक सद"य "वारा / Per Sanjay Garg: The Present Appeal Has Been Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 22.01.2024 Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre [Hereinafter Referred To As ‘Cit(A)’] Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’). 2. The Assessee In This Appeal Has Taken The Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Law As Well As On Fact In Dismissing The Appeal When He Ought To Consider That Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Has Wrongly Assumed The Jurisdiction U/S 147 Of The Act Hence The Assessment Order Passed There On Is Null & Void Ab-Initio. 2. The Ld. Cit(A) Nfac Erred In Law As Well As On Fact To Upheld The Assessment Order Of The Jao Treating Agreement Of Development As

Section 147Section 2(47)Section 250

jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Act hence the assessment order passed there on is null and void ab-initio. 2. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in law as well as on fact to upheld the assessment order of the JAO treating Agreement of development as I.T.A No.491/Kol/2024 Assessment Year ... Transfer' u/s 2(47) of the Act, whereas none of the condition thereof are applicable on the fact. 3. The Ld. CIT(A) NFAC erred in law as well as on facts to dismiss the appeal of the appellant without considering that the agreement for development did not materialized

Syamali Security & Consultant (P)Ltd, Delhi vs. PCIT-2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 383/KOL/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Sonjoy Sarma]

Section 143(3)Section 263

declaring total income of Rs. 3,360/-. The assessment u/s 143(3) of the Act was completed by NFAC, Delhi on 08.03.2021 by accepting the return of income as assessed income. Soon after the assessment, the case records were examined by the ld. PCIT and on examination of the case

Kailash Parashar, Pushkar, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3), Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 90/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 2(14)Section 271(1)Section 271(1)(c)Section 54

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 09-01-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2016-17 raising solitary ground as under:- ‘’The only issue in this appeal is against the imposition of penalty

Rukshmani Singh Nathawat, Jaipur vs. ITO, NFAC, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed with no order as to costs

ITA 720/JPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Paridhi Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 272A(1)Section 272A(1)(d)

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 26-02-2024, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2017-18 raising therein following grounds of appeal. 1) The Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Herein referred to as "Learned ... NFAC (A)") has erred in law and on facts in upholding in upholding the penalty levied in the Penalty Order u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (Herein referred to as NFAC) and dismissing the appeal, same is bona fide mistake

Pawan Kumar Baj, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to costs

ITA 105/JPR/2024[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 69Section 69C

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 05-12-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2007-08 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. THE APPEALETTE AUTHORITY HAS ERRED BY NOT PROVIDING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD

M.S. Modi and Sons, Jaipur vs. The Assessing Authority, Delhi

ITA 658/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur02 Aug 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 10ASection 270A

assessee is directed against order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 25-05-2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2018-19 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ''1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case

Sheela Daniel, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(3)(4), Mumbai, Bkc Bandra (East)

In the result, appeal of the assessee ITA No

ITA 2675/MUM/2024[2007-08]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Bhupendra Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Pravin M Chavan (SRDR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 234Section 250oSection 271Section 56(2)(v)

pronouncement : /08/2024 ORDER PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal of the assessee was filed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) [for brevity, ‘Ld.CIT(A)'] passed under section 250of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the Act') for Assessment year 2007-08, date of order09.052024

Shama Shamim Gubitra, Mumbai, Maharashtra vs. Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), Piramal Chamber, Mumbai

In the result, the ITA No

ITA 2667/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Br Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pravin M Chavan (CIT DR)

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “J(SMC)”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI BR BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

Income Tax Officer, Mumbai vs. Sameer Mahesh Sachde, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed and the Cross

ITA 2630/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Pravin ChavanFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Punmiya

Section 148

Revenue and the Cross objection filed by the assessee are directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (‘CIT(A)' for short) and they relate to assessment year 2011-12. Both the parties are aggrieved with the decision of the learned

Parekh Market Co-Op. Society Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 27(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 2409/MUM/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

For Appellant: Shri. Mehul ShahFor Respondent: Shri. Kiran Unavekar

Section 139Section 143Section 143(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)Section 80P(4)Section 81

raised following grounds of appeal: "Being aggrieved by the order of the Centralized Processing Centre (CPC), Bengaluru and learned Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal), NFAC, this appeal petition is filed on the following amongst other grounds of appeal, which it is prayed may be considered without prejudice to one another

ITO-24(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Drapewell Garments, Mumbai

ITA 1347/MUM/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Aug 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Sharma (CIT DR)

Section 115Section 132Section 132(4)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 148

present appeal the Revenue has challenged the order dated 24/01/2024, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeals – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as the ‘CIT(A)’] for the Assessment Year 2012-13, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had partly allowed the appeal

Bhim Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 255/DEL/2024[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Arora, CAFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 28Section 34Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)Section 57Section 69ASection 80CSection 80D

Hearing : 26.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 02.08.2024 ORDER PER NAVEEN CHANDRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:- This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the NFAC, Delhi dated 28.1.2023 pertaining to A.Y 2019-20. 2. The grievances of the assessee read as under: “1. On the basis of Facts &circumstances

Faiyaj, Noida vs. Income Tax Officer, Noida

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

ITA 2093/DEL/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahyafaiyaj, Vs. Ito, C/O Sanjeev Anand & Associates, Noida. 136, Navyug Market, Ghaziabad – 201 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aclpf2308P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 25.07.2024 Date Of Order : 02.08.2024 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac) Dated 02.04.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. Grounds Of Appeal Taken By The Assessee Read As Under :- “1. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming The Addition Of Ld. Assessing Officer In Framing The Impugned Reassessment Order U/S 147/144 & That Too Without Assuming Jurisdiction As Per Law & Without Complying With The Mandatory Conditions U/S 147 To 151 As Envisaged Under The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That Having Regard To The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, Ld. Cit (A) Has Erred In Law & On Facts In Confirming

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

Section 10Section 144Section 147

Date of Order : 02.08.2024 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. CIT (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) dated 02.04.2024 for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. Grounds of appeal taken by the assessee read as under :- “1. That having regard

Shambhu Dayal Modern School, Sonepat vs. ITO Exemptions Ward, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1236/DEL/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Aug 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Anubhav Sharmashambhu Dayal Modern Vs. Ito (Exemption), School, Rohtak Gohana Road, Haryana (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan:Aabts9199M

For Appellant: Ms. Rano Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. K. Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 12ASection 139(4)Section 143(1)

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANUBHAV SHARMA, JUDICIAL