“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

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 751/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu & Shri Keshav Dubeykanala Subramanyam The Income Tax Officer No. 58/1, 8Th Cross, 12Th Main Ward - 5(2)(5), Bengaluru Raghavendra Block Vs. Srinagar, Bengaluru 560050 Pan – Bryps2091H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri T. Srinivasa, Ca Revenue By: Shri Subramanian S., Jcit-Dr Date Of Hearing: 25.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 03.07.2024 O R D E R Per: Keshav Dubey, J.M. This Appeal At The Instance Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (Cit(A)) Vide Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2003-24/1062689536(1) Dated 15.03.2024 Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The Act) In Respect Of Assessment Year (Ay) 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal: - 1. The Impugned Order Passed By The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Is Highly Unjust, Arbitrary & Contrary To Law & The Principles Of Natural Justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) Nfac Has Failed To Appreciate That The Banking Transaction Of The Appellant During F.Y. 2016-17 Were In The Normal Course Of The Appellant'S Business Activities & That The Cash Deposits To His Bank Account

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - 1. The impugned order passed by the learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) NFAC is highly unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. 2. The Learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) NFAC has failed to appreciate that ... were out of genuine business receipts as well as the re-deposit of the earlier withdrawals. 3. The learned Commissioner of income tax (Appeals) NFAC is not justified to have treated the entire cash deposited to the appellant's Bank accounts as unexplained cash and ought have appreciated that those

Sri. Kanala Subramanyam, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 750/BANG/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu (Accountant Member), Shri Keshav Dubey (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri T. Srinivasa, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subramanian S., JCIT-DR

Section 133Section 139(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

grounds of appeal: - 1. That, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the impugned order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) NFAC is highly unjust, arbitrary and contrary to law and the principles of natural justice. 2. That in the facts and circumstances of the case

Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3)(5), Bengaluru

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

ITA 709/BANG/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri Soundararajan Kassessment Year : 2017-18 Shri. Marathi Narayana Sathisha, Vs. Ito, No.98, 1St Cross, Near White Park Ward – 3(3)(5), Apartments, Kudulu Village, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 068. Pan : Bjsps 3665 K Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Monish Sowkar, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel For Department. Date Of Hearing : 21.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.06.2024 O R D E R Per Soundararajan K: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Nfac Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’) Dated 29.11.2023, In Respect Of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Working As A Physical Instructor In The Cambridge Public School At Bangalore. During The Demonetization Period, The Ao Found That The Assessee Had Deposited Cash Into His Bank Accounts Amounting To Rs.22,53,400/- & Therefore Issued Notices Under Section 143(2) & 142(1) Of The Act For Which The Assessee Had Failed To File Reply. Thereafter, A Show Cause Notice Was Also Issued To The Assessee For Which Also Assessee Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. Monish Sowkar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R Gale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 69A

Soundararajan K, Judicial Member : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the NFAC under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’) dated 29.11.2023, in respect of Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee ... under section 144 of the Act by making an addition under section 69A of the Act. The assessee thereafter filed an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi, and contended that the assessee was not able to reply to the various notices since he had shifted his residence to a new address