“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

Conarch Associates, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Circle 1(1)(1), Meerut

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 41/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri C. N.Prasad & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra

Section 143(3)Section 68

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order, dated 28.07.2023, of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In Short ‘the CIT(A)’]. 2. The facts, in brief, are that the assessee/appellant, a partnership firm, engaged in civil construction works, filed

Gurnam Arora, Faridabad vs. DCIT, Circle-14(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 354/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2010-11

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 254

BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 20.10.2023, arising out of assessment order dated 15.11.2019, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year ... Assessing Officer ('AO') and the disallowance made therein are illegal, bad in law and without jurisdiction. The National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC') vide order 2 dated 20.01.2023 has also grossly erred in sustaining the said disallowance. 2. That, in view of the facts and circumstances of the case

Conner Institute of Healthcare and Research Center Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, Ward-6(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3383/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2021-22

Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 15.11.2023, arising out of assessment order dated 20.12.2022, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year

Diwan Saheb Fashions Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT Circle-7(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3247/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)Section 285B

BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 31.10.2023, arising out of assessment order dated 29.12.2019, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year ... support from any of the provisions of the Act. This fundamental error committed by the ld. AO had been upheld by the ld. NFAC in the instant case. Be that as it may, we find that the assessee had furnished all the requisite documents to prove the cash 5 deposits

Dharampal, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 51(3), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3170/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 143(3)

BALAGANESH, AM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), dated 26.10.2023, arising out of assessment order dated 29.12.2019, passed by the Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, pertaining to the assessment year

Everest Business Advisory India Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ACIT, Circle 7(1), New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1984/DEL/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: The Cit(A), Who Allowed Relief Of Rs.1,75,17,348/- & Upheld Remaining Disallowance Of Rs.15,03,314/-. Aggrieved, The Assessee/Appellant Filed This Appeal Challenging The Disallowance Of Rs.15,03,314/- Upheld By The Ld. Cit(A).

Section 143(1)Section 36(1)(va)

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order, dated 10.05.2023, of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi [In Short ‘the CIT(A)’]. Page 1 of 4 2. The assessee/appellant filed its return of income declaring income of Rs.11

Vinay Kumar Shukla, Lucknow vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Lucknow

The appeal is partly allowed

ITA 37/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 144BSection 147Section 250(6)Section 69A

I.T.A. No.37/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2015-16 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU

Dharminder Singh, Sunam vs. ITO Ward Sunam, Sunam

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

ITA 594/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us, Against The Impugned Order Of Ld. Cit(A) Dt. 26/07/2023. 3. The Assessee Is An Individual & During The Year The Assessee Had Made Cash Deposit Of Rs. 30,22,375/-In His Saving Bank Account But The Assessee Has Not Filed His Return Of Income For The A.Y. 2012-13. Based On The Information Available On The Record, The Case Was Reopened By Issuing Notice Under Section 148 Dt. 27/03/2019 After The Approval Of Competent Authority.

For Appellant: Shri Peyush Pruthi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Amanpreet Kaur, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 253Section 69A

aggrieved by DIN &Order No. ITBA/NFAC/5/250/2023- 24/1054608247(1) for A.Y. 2012-13 dated 26/07/2023 which was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) at NFAC Delhi under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The said appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) by passing the aforesaid order

The Baghat Urban Co-Operative Bank Limited, Solan vs. DCIT, Circle, Solan

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed

ITA 423/CHANDI/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 423/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 The Baghat Urban Co-Operative Vs. The Dcit, Bank Limited, बनाम Circle Parwanoo, Head Office Baghat Bank Solan, Hp Parisar, Rajgarh Road, Solan Hp 173212 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aacat8221F अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent (Virtual Hearing) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate With Shri Adiyta Sood, Advocate. राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Smt. Garima Singh, Cit Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 29.04.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 30.04.2024 आदेश/Order Per Dr. Krinwant Sahay, A.M.:

For Appellant: Sh. Vishal Mohan, Sr. Advocate with Shri Adiyta Sood, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Garima Singh, CIT DR

Section 43D

appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 08.06.2023 of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18 on the following grounds: - 1. That in the facts and circumstances of the case the Ld. Commissioner ... account of interest due on accrual basis on NPA. Against such addition, the Assessee filed an appeal before the ld. CIT(A) NFAC, 423-Chd-2023-The Baghat Urban Co-operatiave Bank Limited, Solan 3 Delhi. The ld. CIT(A) has discussed section

Mayfair Biotech Private Limited, Una vs. DCIT, Circle, Palampur

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

ITA 191/CHANDI/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr Krinwant Sahayआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 191/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Mayfair Biotech Private Vs. The Dcit, बनाम Circle, Limited, Palampur 67An, Industrial Area, Mehatpur, Una 174303 "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaetp5732G अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent

For Appellant: Sh. Parikshit Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Dharam Vir, JCIT Sr. DR

Section 250Section 40

appeal in this case has been filed by the Assessee against the order dated 14.02.2023 of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2012-13 taking the following Grounds of appeal: - 191-Chd-2023 –Mayfair Biotech Private Limited, Una. 2 1. That ... facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy CIT(A), NFAC in Appeal No. CIT (A), Palampur/10217/2018-19 dated 14.02.2023 has erred in passing the order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. That on the facts, circumstances and legal position of the case, the Worthy

M/S. Candor Infrastructure, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 1(1)(1) (Previously DCIT, Circle-1(2)), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 56/AHD/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member), Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha (Accountant Member)

Section 143(3)Section 40

hereby condoned. 3. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: 1. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has grossly erred in law and in facts in dismissing the appeal ex-parte without affording reasonable opportunity of being heard and for want of prosecution ... appeal of the appellant may kindly be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC, and may please he directed to afford reasonable opportunity of being heard. 2. The Ld. CIT (Appeals), NFAC has erred in law and in facts in confirming the action

Shree Radhekrishna Extrusions Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 3/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shree Radhekrishna Extrusions The Acit Pvt. Ltd. Vs Circle-4(1)(1), Plot No. C1 4509, Phase Iv Ahmedabad Behind Techno Ind Ltd. Vatva Ahmedabad 382 445 Gujarat Pan: Aaics 8566 N

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay R. Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri Nitin Kulkarni, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)

ACIT Asst. Year : 2017-18 2. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: 1. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts of the case by upholding the disallowance to the extent of Rs. 15,85,650/-made by the learned ... Assessing Officer in respect of increase in material consumption for the year under consideration. 2. The Hon'ble Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals (NFAC) has erred in law and on facts of the case by upholding the disallowance made by the learned Assessing Officer under section

Chiragbhai Patel, Khambhat vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Previously Circle-1(3), Vadodara

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

ITA 945/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Accountnat Member Assessment Year : 2015-16 Chiragbhai Patel The Dy.Cit At Post Vasna, Tal. Khambhat Vs Circle-1(3) Khambhat – 388 620 Vadodara (Gujarat) Pan: Agfpp 2960 D

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Khandhar, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sudhendu Das, CIT-DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 259Section 274Section 44A

MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is 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 09.10.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2015-16. 2. Grounds taken in this appeal are as under ... अपीलाथ% / The Appellant 2. "&यथ% / The Respondent. 3. संबं)धत आयकर आयु+त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु+त ( अपील ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi 5. वभागीय ""त"न)ध , आयकर अपील"य अ)धकरण , राजोकट/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad, 6. गाड2 फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स&या पत

Hamirbhai Savjibhai Baraiya, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(8), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 93/AHD/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: Us By Way Of Notortized Affidavit Filed By His Advocate Shri Pruthvirajsinh M Rathod, As Follows:

KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal is filed by the assessee as against the appellate order dated 14.12.2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as “Ld.NFAC” for short] dismissing the appeal by stating that there is a delay of 31 days and no explanation offered ... filing the same before the Hon’ble ITAT, Ahmedabad in connection with the pending appeal ITA 93/AHD/2023…” 3. The Ld.Counsel submitted that NFAC, had literally provided only two opportunities of hearing dated 14.11.2021 and 24.11.2022 and wrongly dismissed the appeal as time barred without affording proper opportunity of hearing

Rolesh Somchandbhai Shah Prop. New Freezland, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-5(2)(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, the assessee succeeds in the present appeal

ITA 782/AHD/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri M. K. Patel, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Katiar, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69

Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (in short “Ld. CIT(A)”), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi vide order dated 08.08.2023 passed for A.Y. 2013-14. 2. The assessee has taken the following grounds of appeal:- 1. That on facts ... learned NFAC-CIT(A) has grievously erred in confirming the re-opening of assessment under Section147 of the Act, which is on erroneous facts, and hence invalid and void ab-initio. 2. That on facts and in law, the learned AO has grievously erred in not providing the adverse materials

Rahul Mansukhbhai Raiyani, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(2), Vadodara

In the result, these Tax Appeals are also allowed

ITA 541/AHD/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: The A.O. Therefore The A.O. Made Disallowance Of Depreciation Of Rs.3,04,279/-, Unexplained Investment Of Rs.1,34,03,090/- & Unexplained Cash Credit Of Rs.1,28,68,843/- & Determined The Total Income As Rs.2,74,10,818/- & Demanded Tax Thereon.

Section 144Section 37Section 68Section 69B

income as Rs.2,74,10,818/- and demanded tax thereon. 3. Aggreived against the exparte order, assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A), NFAC. The Ld. NFAC given five opportunities to hearing between 15.02.2021 to 26.04.2023. The assessee failed to respond to only of the notices issued and failed ... file “written submission” before Appellate Authority. However the Ld. NFAC considered the Grounds of Appeal filed by the assessee and deleted the addition of Rs. 1,22,05,837/- being the confirmation produced by the assessee from Shri Nimity R. Sangani. As regarding remaining additions, the assessee failed to provide

Sindhudurg Zilla Gramsevak Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit Sindhudurg Oros, Oras Kudal vs. Income Tax Officer, Kudal

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

ITA 560/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 22.01.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co- operative Society engaged ... holding it to be not a co-operative society but a co-operative bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

Vikas Laxman Chaudhari, Jalgaon vs. ITO Ward 1(3) Jalgaon, Jalgaon

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

ITA 558/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Vinay KawdiaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 143(3)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 23.12.2023 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual The Return of Income ... Rs.20,33,500/- being the cash deposits in the bank account. 3. Being aggrieved by the above additions, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution without going into the merits of the issue in appeal. 4. Being

Baner Nagari Sahakari Pat Sanstha Maryadit, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(2), Pune

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

ITA 549/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Vinay Bhamore

For Appellant: Shri Randeep SharmaFor Respondent: Shri Manoj Tripathi

Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 19.01.2024 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co- operative Society registered under ... holding it to be not a co-operative society but a co-operative bank. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Karnataka High Court

Milind Chhabulalshinkar, Jalgaon vs. ITO, Ward 2(3), Jalgaon

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

ITA 484/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune30 Apr 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Raoआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.484/Pun/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Milind Chhabulal Shinkar, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(3), Plot No.20, Kailasnagar, Jalgaon Bhadgaon Road, Chalisgaon, Jalgaon – 424 101 Maharashtra Pan : Avips5421L Appellant Respondent

For Respondent: Assessee by Shri Sanket Joshi

Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 69A

INTURI RAMA RAO, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 30.12.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. At the outset, the appeal is barred by 378 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal