“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

Agro Haat, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 36(2), Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 101/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Sh. Sudhir Kumarassessment Year: 2017-18 Agro Haat Vs. Ito Shop No. A-1131, New Subzi Ward- 36 (2) Mandi, New Delhi-110033 Delhi Pan No.Aapfa2449G (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

SUDHIR KUMAR, JM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre [hereinafter referred as ‘NFAC’] dated 22.11.2023 pertaining to A.Y.2017-2018 under section 143(3) arises out of the assessment order passed by Income Tax Officer, Ward- 36(2), Delhi dated ... raising the following grounds:- 1. The Order passed u/s 250 by the Commissioner of income-tax (Appeals) Income Tax Department, National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, is without granting proper opportunity to therefore is in violation of principles of natural justice. the appellant Rs. 65,32,521/- 2. That

Om Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the Appeal of the Assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3739/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: Sh. M. R. Sahu, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Anshul Sr. DR

Section 115BSection 133(6)Section 142(1)

This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2016-17 against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), New Delhi, dated 03/11/2023. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. On the basis of facts and circumstances

Ashok Kumar, Gurugram vs. ITO Ward 1(3), Gurugram

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

ITA 3689/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Mr. Shamim Yahya & Ms. Madhumita Royi.T.A. No. 3689/Del/2023 (Assessment Year : 2017-18) Ashok Kumar Vs. Cit Ews 224, Ridgewood Ito Ward-1(3) Estate, Galleria Dlf-Iv Gurugram S.O., Gurugram – Haryana Pan: Ddjpk 5152 C (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: Respondent byFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250Section 68

JUDICIAL MEMBER : The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 27.09.2023 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – NFAC, Delhi under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred as to ‘the Act’) arising out of the order dated Ashok Kumar

Mohd. Wasim, Gafoor Nagar, New Delhi vs. Income-Tax Officer Ward - 28 (4), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for

ITA 3675/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 3675/Del/2023 (A.Y 2012-13)

For Appellant: Mohd. Wasim (Party in person)For Respondent: Sh. Anshul Sr. DR

Section 147

This appeal is filed by the assessee for Assessment Year 2012- 13 against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), New Delhi, dated 16/10/2023. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. That on the facts and circumstances ... case and in law the Id. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) erred in passing the order 2 Mohd. Wasim Vs. ITO dated 16.10.2023 (hereafter 'the impugned order') sustaining the addition made by the Id. ITO, Ward -28(4), New Delhi (hereafter 'the Id. AO') amounting

Panna Lal Goel, Hisar vs. ITO Ward-2, Bhiwani

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

ITA 3478/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and after considering the submissions of the assessee, the ld. CIT(A) sustained the additions made by the Assessing Officer.

Section 132Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 153CSection 44A

This appeal has been filed by the Assessee against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short], dated 10/10/2023 for Assessment Year 2013-14. Panna Lal Goel vs. ITO 2. The brief facts of the case

ACIT, Central Circle- 27, New Delhi vs. Ridgeview Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi

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

ITA 7883/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Or At The Time Hearing Of The Appeal.” 3. We Shall Proceed To Dispose Of This Appeal Ground Wise.

Section 37(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE, SHRI S.RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SUDHIR

Medical Pollution Control Committee, Kanpur vs. ACIT, Central-1(2)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 77/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2017-18 Medical Pollution Control V. The Asstt. Commissioner Of Committee Income Tax 21E Block, Panki Circle 1(2)(1) Kanpur City 208020 Kanpur Pan:Aaaac3243Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, Advocate Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Jitendra Kumar Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

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 01.01.2024 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel appearing on behalf of the assessee without stressing ... merits of the case submitted that, the ld. CIT(A), NFAC passed an ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of the assessee. Moreover, he has not decided the appeal after discussing in detail, his reasons for agreeing with the assessment order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the matter

Technical Associates Limited, Lucknow vs. DCIT, Range-3, Lucknow

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 228/LKW/2023[AY 2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024

Bench: Shri G. D. Padamahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaassessment Year: 2015-16 Technical Associates Limited V. Dy. Commissioner Of Income 8Th Km, Faizabad Road Tax Vijaypur, Gomti Nagar Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Pan:Aabct7365F (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Santhosh Kumar Respondent By: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 25 06 2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 25 06 2024 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Santhosh KumarFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Krishna Sharma, D.R

Section 32(1)(iii)Section 36(1)(va)

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 18.05.2023 for the assessment year 2015-16, inter alia, on the following grounds:- 1. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (here ... same was deposited after the due date. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A), NFAC vide impugned order dated ITA No.228/LKW/2023 Page 3 of 7 18.05.2023 partly allowed the appeal of the assessee, confirming the addition of Rs.3,03,032/- being

Ajay Kumar Nirwan, Lucknow vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(1)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 121/LKW/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra & Shri Subhash Malguria

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)

I.T.A. No.121/Lkw/2023 Assessment Year:2016-17 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI ANADEE

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 106/LKW/2023[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.102 To 106/Lkw/2023 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2008-09 To 2012-13 Finance & Accounts Officer, District Inspector Of Schools, Lucknow, 58, Shiksha Bhavan, Jagat Narayan Rd. Lucknow. Pan: Aaacf0233P . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

25/06/2024 आदेश / ORDER Per G. D. Padmahshali, AM; This bunch of five appeals arising out of separate orders of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’ hereinafter] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act [‘the Act’ hereinafter] which in turn stemmed out of consolidated order of penalty [‘PO’ hereinafter] passed ... facts and circumstances in the present case before us and maintaining the same parity of reasoning, we set aside the impugned orders of Ld. NFAC for AY 2008-09 to AY 2012-13 and direct the Ld. AO to delete penalty in its entirety. The grounds of appeal accordingly stands

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 105/LKW/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2009-10

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 104/LKW/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2010-11

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow.

ITA 103/LKW/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

Finance & Accounts Officer, Dios, Lucknow. vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax(TDS), Lucknow

ITA 102/LKW/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 198Section 199Section 250Section 272A(2)(k)

Jan Shikshan Sansathan, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Exemptions Ward, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 801/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case & Is, Thus, Untenable.”

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Manpreet Duggal, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 11Section 143(1)Section 154Section 245

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “ए” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “A”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Pankaj Gupta, Chandigarh vs. DCIT, Circle 1, Chandigarh

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

ITA 484/CHANDI/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off. 4. That The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax Is Erroneous, Arbitrary, Opposed To Law & Facts Of The Case & Is, Thus, Untenable.” 3. Briefly The Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 03/08/2018 Which Was Selected For Scrutiny & During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Assessee Was Asked To Provide Details Of The Asset Sold Along With Supporting Documentation Substantiating The Claim For Long Term Capital Gain (Ltcg).

For Appellant: Shri Tejmohan Singh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shr Dharam Vir, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)

आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING

Victory Construction Company, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(5), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 350/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri T.R. Senthil Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Victory Construction Company, Income Tax Officer, 7, Amrapali Apartments, Ward-1(3)(5), Nr. Usmanpura Railway Vs Ahmedabad Crossing, Usmanpura, Ahmedabad-380014 [Pan No.:Aahfv8333J] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Manish J. Shah, A.R. Respondent By : Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing: 12.06.2024 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25.06.2024

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah, A.RFor Respondent: Ms. Saumya Pandey Jain, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 234Section 68

MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the ex-parte order dated 15.01.2024 passed by National Faceless Appeal Center (in short “NFAC”), Delhi arising out of the ex-parte assessment order passed under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... being the alleged contract receipt shown by the assessee as not genuine. 3. Aggrieved against the order, assessee filed an appeal before NFAC. NFAC offered four hearing notices between 25.12.2020 to 09.01.2024, as the assessee failed to respond to the above notices, Ld. NFAC confirmed the addition made

Yogeshkumar Gajrajsingh Yadav, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1046/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt.Annapurna Guptaasstt.Year :2012-13 Yogeshkumar Gajrajsingh Yadav The Ito-Ward-3(1)(1) 26, Nandanbaug Vs Ahmedabad. Club-07 Road, Nr.Apple Wood Village Shela, Sanand Ahmedabad 380 058. Pan : Aaepy 8589 Q (Applicant) (Responent) : Written Submission Assessee By : Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 05/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 25/06/2024 आदेश आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश

For Appellant: Shri C. Dharani Nath, Sr.DR

Section 234Section 250Section 68

assessee’s income under Section 68 of the Act. Dissatisfied with this addition, the assessee appealed to the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, who upheld the AO’s decision on this matter. The relevant finding of the Ld. CIT(A) is as follows: “It is the grievance of the appellant that

Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Solapur vs. ITO, Ward 2(4), Solapur

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

ITA 897/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.897/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Jayshree Bhalchandra Gutal, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(4), Bhalu Kumkum, Plot Solapur. No.1228, A/P Kem, Karmala, Solapur- 413223. Pan : Ahzpg6709J Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Pratik Sandbhor Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Gawali Date Of Hearing : 20.06.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 25.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29.02.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Passing An Exparte Order Without Granting Sufficient Opportunity To The Appellant. 2. On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law The Assessing Officer Erred In Invoking The Provision Of Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 In Respect Of Cash Deposits Without Taking Cognizance Of The Fact That The Cash Deposits Have Been Duly Recorded In The Books Of Accounts Of The Appellant.

For Appellant: Shri Pratik SandbhorFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Gawali

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 44ASection 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH “SMC”, PUNE BEFORE SHRI DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI

Mindspace Versonal Information, Aurangabad vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Aurangabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 612/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune25 Jun 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.612/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2016-17 Mindspace Ventures Limited, Vs. Ito, Ward-1(1), Plot No.4, Jay Nagar, Aurangabad Dashmeshnagar, Aurangabad 431 005 Maharashtra Pan : Aagcm3686H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Adjournment application rejectedFor Respondent: Shri Sandeep P. Sathe

Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148

आदेश / ORDER PER INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 15.01.2024 for the assessment year 2016-17. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a company which