“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

M/Shand Made Films, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1502/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.: 1501 & 1502/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years: 2016-17 & 2017-18 M/S. Hand Made Films, The Assistant Commissioner Of S3, No. 27, V. Income Tax, 5 Twinkle Roof Apartments, Non Corporate Circle -10(1), State Bank Colony, Wanaparthy Block, No. 121, 2Nd Cross Street, M.G. Road, Nungambakkam, Virugambakkam, Chennai – 600 034. Chennai – 600 092. [Pan: Aagfh-6400-D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Shri. T. Vasudevan, Advocate अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

filed by the assessee are directed against separate but identical orders passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, both dated 27.10.2023 and pertains to assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. Since, facts :-2-: ITA. Nos: 1501 & 1502/Chny/2023 are identical and issues

M/S Hand Made Films, Chennai vs. ACIT, Non Corporate Circle-10(1), Chennai

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee for assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18 are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1501/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

For Respondent: Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

Psg Employees Cooperative Housing Society, Coimbatore vs. Assessing Officer, Coimbatore

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed

ITA 1496/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble & Shri Manjunatha. G, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.: 1496/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22 Psg Employees Cooperative The Income Tax Officer, Housing Society, V. Non-Corporate Ward -1(1), 1609, Peelamedu, Coimbatore Coimbatore. South, Coimbatore – 641 004. [Pan: Aadap-3102-C] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri. M. Karunanantham, Advocate : Shri. D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri. M. Karunanantham, Advocate

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 80PSection 80P(2)(d)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 06.12.2023 and pertains to assessment year 2021-22. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “This appeal has been preferred ... dated 06.12.2023 passed under section 250 of Income Tax Act 1961, :-2-: ITA. No: 1496/Chny/2023 via order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1058512491(1) passed by CIT Appeal NFAC confirming the order passed by the assessing officer. The appellant is also disputing the order passed by the assessing officer dated 09.12.2022 passed Under Section

Kinchitkaram Trust, Chennai vs. ITO, Exemptions Ward 1, Chennai

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

ITA 1492/CHNY/2023[--]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1492/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2016-17 M/S. Kinchitkaram Trust, The Income Tax Officer No.6, Bheemasena Garden Street, Vs. (Exemptions), Mylapore, Ward 1, Chennai – 600 004. Chennai – 34. Pan: Aaatk 8286E (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 154

Q-872 Thiruthangal Primary Agricultural Co- Operative Credit Society Limited, Virudhunagar vs. ITO, Ward 3, Virudhunagar

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

ITA 1433/CHNY/2023[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Manjunatha.Gआयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.: 1433/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2021-22 M/S. Q-872 Thiruthangal The Income Tax Officer, Primary Agricultural Co- Vs. Ward 3, Operative Credit Society Ltd., Virudhunagar. Thiruthangal, Virudhunagar – 626 130. Pan: Aaaaq 0201C (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/Appellant By : Shri S. Girish Kumar, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri D. Hema Bhupal, Jcit सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 19.02.2024 घोषणा क" तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 19.02.2024

For Appellant: Shri S. Girish Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri D. Hema Bhupal, JCIT

Section 143(1)(a)Section 144Section 250(6)Section 69ASection 69C

VICE PRESIDENT: This appeal by the assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) in order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1057107725(1) dated 16.10.2023. The assessment order was framed by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department for the assessment ... violation of principles of natural justice. For this, the ld.counsel for the assessee drew our attention to following ground Nos.2,3 & 4:- 2. The NFAC, Delhi erred in dismissing the appeal ex-parte and ought to have appreciated that any order passed in gross violation of principles of natural justice

Venkatachalam Ganesh Shankar, Salem vs. Incometax Officer, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1287/CHNY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT

Section 147

These appeals by assessee are arising out of different orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in orders No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055959381 (1) and No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1055957494 (1) both dated 11.09.2023. The assessments were framed by the Additional/ Joint/Deputy / Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless

Venkatachalam Ganesh Shankar, Salem vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(6), Salem

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA Nos

ITA 1286/CHNY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT

Section 147

Natarajan Priya, Salem vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Salem

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1246/CHNY/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri S. Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri ARV Sreenivasan, Addl CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250

This appeal by assessee is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi in Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1034538718 (1) dated 30.07.2021. The assessment was framed by the Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(1), Salem for the assessment year 2011-12, u/s.143

Income Tax Officer, Ward 4, Cuddalore vs. Murary Setty Durga Mounika, Neyveli

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

ITA 1217/CHNY/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh

For Appellant: Shri AR.V Sreenivasan, Addl. CITFor Respondent: None

Section 143(1)

This appeal by the Revenue is arising out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) vide order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023- 24/1053620684(1) dated 08.06.2023. The return of income was processed and intimation u/s.143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter

Pawan Agarwal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward 5(5), Jaipur

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

ITA 28/JPR/2024[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2017-2018

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh (Adv.)For Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh (Addl.CIT)

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

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh

Rajesh Agarwal, Vidhyadhara Nagar Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer WD 4(1), ITO Jaipur

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

ITA 22/JPR/2024[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri C.M. Batwara (Adv.)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 249(2)Section 68Section 69C

ara aitcita after, cage =aradis, aayR IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR So Va. Mates, = wees

Ravindra Gaur, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 6(3), Jaipur

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

ITA 673/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Him. Appellant Prays That Holding The Order Of Id. Ao As Legal & Correct Despite The Fact That The Residential Status Of Appellant Was A Non-Resident Indian (Nri) During The Relevant Financial Year Is Most Unjust & Unwarranted. Therefore, The Order Of Ld. Cit(A)/Nfac Deserves To Be Quashed.

For Appellant: Shri Anoop Bhatia (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Anup Singh (Addl.CIT) a

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

appeal on the following 2 Ravindra Gaur. vs.ITO grounds:- “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law Id. CIT(A) / NFAC has grossly erred in confirming the order of Id. AO, without appreciating the complete facts narrated and presented by appellant before him. Appellant prays that ... email stated above did not find any mention in the assessment order passed on 15.03.2023. Subsequently an appeal was preferred before Ld. CIT(A) NFAC, Delhi wherein again the facts were duly narrated with complete documentary 10 Ravindra Gaur. vs.ITO evidences and written submissions (copy at PB page

Rajesh Motors (Cars) Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 5(1), Jaipur

ITA 649/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Godha CAFor Respondent: Shri Anoop Singh. Runi Pal, Addl. CIT

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

आयकरअपीलीय अधिकरण, जयपुरन्यायपीठ, जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR डा० एस. सीतालक्ष्मी, न्यायिकसदस्य एवंश्रीराठोडकमलेशजयन्तभाई, लेखा

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

In the result, the appeal of the revenue for AYs 2016-17 and

ITA 964/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

For Appellant: Shri S. Ananthan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders 27.09.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The assessee is a private sector bank carrying on the business of banking. The assessee filed return ... under regular provisions as well as u/s. 115JB of the Act and completed the assessments u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The ClT(Appeals), NFAC partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Hence the assessee and revenue are in appeal for both the years. Certain common grounds are raised

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 1(1), Mangaluru vs. Karnataka Bank Ltd., Mangaluru

ITA 963/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri Laxmi Prasad Sahu

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders 27.09.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The assessee is a private sector bank carrying on the business of banking. The assessee filed return ... under regular provisions as well as u/s. 115JB of the Act and completed the assessments u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Hence the assessee and revenue are in appeal for both the years. Certain common grounds are raised

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 877/BANG/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders 27.09.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The assessee is a private sector bank carrying on the business of banking. The assessee filed return ... under regular provisions as well as u/s. 115JB of the Act and completed the assessments u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Hence the assessee and revenue are in appeal for both the years. Certain common grounds are raised

Karnataka Bank Ltd, Mangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mangalore

ITA 876/BANG/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Feb 2024AY 2016-17

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 14A

Bench These appeals are filed by the assessee & revenue against the separate orders 27.09.2023 of the CIT(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [NFAC], for the assessment years 2016-17 & 2017-18. 2. The assessee is a private sector bank carrying on the business of banking. The assessee filed return ... under regular provisions as well as u/s. 115JB of the Act and completed the assessments u/s. 143(3) of the Act. The CIT(Appeals), NFAC partly allowed the appeals of the assessee. Hence the assessee and revenue are in appeal for both the years. Certain common grounds are raised

Vipul Parimal Thakore, Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bengaluru

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

ITA 3595/MUM/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Gagan Goyal

For Appellant: Shri.Anuj Krisnadwala.ARFor Respondent: Smt.Usha Gaikwad.Sr. DR

Section 139(4)Section 143(1)Section 234ASection 90

BENCH: These are the two appeals filed by the assessee against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC) /CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(1) and U/sec 250 of the Act. 2. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the assessee submitted that there

Dinaz Firdos Fanibanda, Mumbai vs. DCIT-Circle 23(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 3499/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai19 Feb 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2018-19

For Appellant: Shri Dharan Gandhi, A.RFor Respondent: Smt. Mahita Nair, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 282

prescribed in Section 282 of the Act. 4. The Ld. Commissioner of Income The Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeal), NFAC/ erred in tax (Appeal), NFAC/ erred in upholding the action upholding the action of the Ld. AO in adding a sum of Rs. of the Ld. AO in adding

Varindavan Fabrics Private Limited, Panipat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 3227/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Saktijit Dey & Sh. M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2017-18 Vrindavan Fabrics Private Ito Limited, Delhi Sanoli Bye Vs Ward – 5 Panipat Pass, Huda Sector-29 Panipat 132103 Pan No.Aaccv7480N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Sh. Amit Kaushik, Advocate Respondent By Sh. Vivek Vardhan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 07/02/2024 Date Of Pronouncement: 19/02/2024 Order Per Saktijit Dey,Vp: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 07.11.2023 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Dispute In The Present Appeal Is Confined To Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.46,03,682/- U/S. 68 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 3. Briefly Stated The Facts Are, The Assessee Is A Resident Corporate Entity. For The Assessment Year Under Dispute, The Assessee Filed Its Return Of Income On 07.10.2017 Declaring Total Income Of Rs. 5,10,270/-. In Course Of Assessment Proceedings The Assessing Officer (Ao) Called Upon The Assessee To Furnish The Details Of Sundry Creditors & Trade Payables With Their Address, Pan Numbers Etc. Alleging That The Assessee Furnished The Details On 19.12.2019 I.E. At The Fag End Of The Year, Which Made Impossible Any Enquiry To Be Carried Out Regarding The Genuineness Of The Trade Payables, The Ao Added Back Trade Payables / Closing Balances In Respect Of Seven Parties Aggregating To Rs.46,03,682/-, By Treating It As Unexplained Cash Credit U/S. 68 Of The Act. Though, The Assessee Contested The Aforesaid Addition Before Learned Commissioner Appeals, However, The Addition Was Sustained.

Section 68

19/02/2024 ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY,VP: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.11.2023 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The dispute in the present appeal is confined to addition of an amount of Rs.46