“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

Akshit Mahesh Karia, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 3(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 6052/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surendra Mohan, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(b)Section 274

assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax Appeal, Mumbai (‘ld. CIT(A)' for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' for short) 2013-14. 2. It is observed

Welkin Developers, Mumbai vs. Asstt. Comm of Income Tax, CC 4(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5070/MUM/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anikesh Banerjee & Shri Jagadish

For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Upadhyay

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 145ASection 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

Electronfab Engineering Pvt Ltd, Seepz Sez Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer, Mumbai

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

ITA 4828/MUM/2025[2024-25]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Mar 2026AY 2024-25

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Nishit Gandhi, Advocate (virtually appear) & Mrs. Usha DalalFor Respondent: Shri Himanshu Joshi (Sr. DR)

Section 115BSection 115JSection 139(5)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “E”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH

M/S Kalpdham Builders and Developers, Sagar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1, Sagar

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

ITA 36/JAB/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 147

assessee for assessment year 2017-18 against impugned appellate order dated 14/11/2024 (DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1070383863 (1) of National Faceless Appeal Centre [“NFAC” for short]. (B) The facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual and filed his return of income on 7/11/2017 declaring total

Applied Communication and Control, Khasra, Dehradun vs. DCIT, Dehradun

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 55/DDN/2026[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 143(3)Section 250

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 25.11.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 06.04.2021 passed

B.A. International, Meerut vs. DCIT Circle-1(3)(1), Haridwar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 53/DDN/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Sumit Kaur Vs Cit(Appeals)/ Ito C/O-Matta Garg & Co., 13A, Subhash 15, Astley Hall, Dehradun, Road, Dehradun Uttarakhand-248001 Uttarakhand Pan-Dmapk1959K Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri S.K.Matta, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.12.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 06.11.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Advocate By Profession & Return Of Income Was Filed On 21.08.2017, Declaring Total Income Of Inr 63,20,030/-. The Case Was Selected For Scrutiny & The Assessment Was Completed U/S 143(3) Of The Act Wherein Addition Of Inr 41 Lakhs Was Made By Holding The Investment Made In Fdr As Unexplained & Further Invoked The Provision Of Section 115Bbe Of The Act. 3. In First Appeal, Ld.Cit(A) Enhanced The Income & Confirmed The Addition Of Inr 60 Lakhs U/S 68 Of The Act By Holding That The Cash Deposited During Demonetization Period Is Unexplained & No Addition Is Sustained Towards The Investment In Fdr.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 23.12.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 06.11.2019 passed

Kalsi Lamps, Kalsi Gate Kalsi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1)(2), Income Tax Office, Dehradun, Subhash Road

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

ITA 47/DDN/2026[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal**

Section 147Section 250

ORDER** ### **PER BENCH:** The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 08.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] arising out of assessment order dated 30.02.2025 passed

Abhishek Banta, Hardwar vs. ITAT, Dehradun

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

ITA 45/DDN/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2013-14] Abhishek Banta Vs Itat, 1, Near Hotel Rama Dehradun Bench, Krishna, Haridwar Railway Income Tax Road, Haridwar, Uttarakhand Uttarakhand -249401. Pan-Ainpb7304D Appellant Respondent Appellant By Ms. Mrinali Sharma, Ca Respondent By Ms. Poonam Sharma, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 12.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 12.11.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”] In Appeal No.288/2013-14 U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 15.05.2023 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S. 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. Heard The Contentions Of Both The Parties At Length & Perused The Material Available On Record. It Is Observed That Both The Lower Authorities I.E. The Ao As Well As Ld. Cit(A) Passed The Orders Ex-Parte For The Reason Of Non-Prosecution On The Part Of The Assessee. In View Of These Facts & In The Interest Of Justice, One More Opportunity Is Provided To The Assessee To Represent Its Case & Accordingly, Matter Is Restored To The File Of Ao To Pass The Order Denovo Afresh. The Assessee Is Directed To Participate In The Remand Proceedings Before The Ao & File All The Necessary Evidences To Substantiate The Source Of Cash Deposited Into Bank. With These Directions, All The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

Section 147Section 250

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 12.11.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] in Appeal No.288/2013-14 u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 15.05.2023 passed

Sumit Kaur, Dehradun vs. Income Tax Office, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 33/DDN/2026[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

Akhilesh Mishra, Nanakmatta vs. Income Tax Officer, Khatima

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 31/DDN/2026[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2014-15] Akhilesh Mishra Vs Ito Sitarganj Road, Near Balaji Mandi Samiti Mandir, Nanakmatta Campus, Khatima, Sahib, Sitarganj, Udham Singh Uttarakhand -262311 Nagar, Pan-Awkpm6776B Uttarakhand Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Amit Kumar Mishra, Ca Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 19.09.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 28.11.2019 Passed U/S 144 R.W.S. 148 Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is A Teacher & Having Source Of Income From Private Teaching/Tuition. The Return Of Income Was Filed Declaring Total Income At Inr 3,60,140/-. The Case Of The Assessee Was Selected For Scrutiny & Order Was Passed U/S 148 R.W.S.144 Of The Act Dated 28.11.2019 By Making Addition Of Inr 29,15,000/- Towards The Cash Deposit As Unexplained Income Of The Assessee.

Section 144Section 148Section 250

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 19.09.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 28.11.2019 passed u/s 144 r.w.s

B R Mordem School Samiti, Pauri vs. I T O, Exemption Ward Dehradun, Dehradun

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 27/DDN/2026[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal**

Section 10Section 12ASection 143(3)Section 250

MANISH AGARWAL, AM :** The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 27.11.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi ["Ld. CIT(A)"] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ["the Act"] against the order dated 07.12.2018 passed

Naugaon Bahuudesiya Sahkari Samiti Limited, Uttarkashi vs. DCIT/ ACIT, Cental Circle, Dehradun

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 273/DDN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal

Section 147Section 250

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 16.05.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 13.03.2024 passed u/s 147 r.w.s

Mohamad Salim Khan, Roorkee vs. CIT (A) &ITO Roorkee, Roorkee

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 266/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S. & Shri Manish Agarwal[Assessment Year : 2017-18] Mohamad Salim Khan Vs Union Of Pathanpura, Roorkee, India/Cit(A)/Ito Distt.-Haridwar, Roorkee Uttarakhand-247663 Uttarakhand Pan-Adupk3527D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Amar Pal Singh, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 11.03.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 13.03.2026 Order Per Bench: The Present Appeal Is Filed By Assessee Against The Order Dated 23.10.2025 Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (A), Nfac, Delhi [“Ld.Cit(A)”] U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“The Act”] Arising Out Of Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2022 Passed U/S 147 R.W.S 144B Of The Act Pertaining To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Therefore, The Appeal Of The Assessee Is Taken For Hearing In The Absence Of The Ld.Ar & On The Basis Of Material Available On Record. 3. Heard The Contention Of Ld.Sr.Dr & Perused The Material Available On Record. We Find That The Addition Of Inr 4,31,000/- Was Made By Invoking The Provision Of Section 50C Of The Act. The Assessee Had Purchased Various Properties During The Year Under Appeal & There Was Difference Between The Sale Consideration As Per Sale Deeds & The Value Determined By The Stamp Valuation Authorities & Since The Difference Was In Excess Of The Tolerance Limit Provided In Section 50C Of The Act. No Satisfactory Explanation Was Tendered Before Us With Respect To Such Difference In Valuation. Thus, Looking To These Facts, We Find No Error In The Order Passed By Ld.Cit(A) In Upholding The Addition Made By Ao U/S 50C Of The Act. Accordingly Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Is Hereby, Upheld.

Section 147Section 250Section 50C

ORDER PER BENCH: The present appeal is filed by assessee against the order dated 23.10.2025 passed by Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi [“Ld.CIT(A)”] u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”] arising out of assessment order dated 30.03.2022 passed u/s 147 r.w.s 144B

ITO, Ward-1(1)(3), Dehradun vs. Trishla Steel Pvt Ltd, Dehradun

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

ITA 188/DDN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Dehradun13 Mar 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

Section 143(2)Section 68

accordingly, he proceeded to make the addition of Rs. 1,49,480/-. . Aggrieved with the above order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and assessee filed detailed submissions and also filed additional evidences under Rule 46A. After considering the detailed submission, Id. CIT(A) allowed the grounds ... land and the submissions filed by the appellant along with Paper book and the subsequent attachment of case laws, order of the CIT(A) NFAC dated 20.9.24 in the case of group cases on the identical facts along with the remand report dated 25.7.2024 which is part of the above

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 140/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.137, 138, 139 & 140/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2013-14 & 2014-15 Maheshwari Panchayat Balod Rajnandgaon, Balod, Chhattisgarh-491 226 Pan: Aaaam7320E

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 139/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2014-15

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 138/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Maheswari Panchayat Balod, Balod vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Bhilai

In the result, appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 137/RPR/2026[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2013-14

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 154(7)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Agrawal Sponge Ltd., Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 136/RPR/2026[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Mar 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.136/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-13 Agrawal Sponge Limited 91-92, Siltara Growth Centre, Phase-Ii, Birgaon, Raipur-493 221 (C.G.) Pan: Aaeca3183F

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Chawda, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 249(3)Section 250(4)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH

Prakashbhai Khengarbhai Dodiya, Surendranagar vs. The ITO Ward 1 Surendranagar, Surendranagar

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

ITA 790/RJT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot13 Mar 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Dr. Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No. 790/Rjt/2025

For Appellant: Shri Samir Vora, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Dheeraj Kumar Gupta, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 144Section 250

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT BEFORE DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND DR. DINESH MOHAN