“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

Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Belgaum vs. Kishore Alias Roshan Suresh Vernekar, Belagavi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 102/PAN/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri N. Shrikanth

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

VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM : This appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 26-07-2022 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi for assessment year 2017-18. 2. We note that this appeal was filed on 04-10-2022 and registered as ITA No. 102/PAN/2022

Pradeep Kumar Singh, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 281/RPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Dec 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 280 & 281/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Pradeep Kumar Singh C-1/2, Maruti Business Park, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Pan : Coups0118F .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

captioned appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the respective orders passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 10.08.2022, which in turn arises from the orders passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income ... mutandis apply to the other appeal. The assessee society has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. The CIT(Appeal)-NFAC has erred in both facts and in law in partially confirming the order passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 147 of the Act. 2. That

Pradeep Kumar Singh, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1), Raipur

In the result, the assessee's appeal in ITA No

ITA 280/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur19 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 69

Vrundavan Restaurant, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2)(1) (New) Ward-1(2)(5), Vadodara (Old), Surat

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 683/SRT/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Dec 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Vrundavan Restaurant, I.T.O., (1)-U-2, Ashirwad Square, Udhna Ward-1(2) (1), Surat- Vs. Magdalla Road, Surat 395007- New, New, (2)- 39/1, 4Th Floor, Vaibhav Ward 1(2)(5), Vadodara- Residency, Arunday Crossword Circle Old. Alkapuri, Alkapuri, Vadodara-390007 – Old. Pan No. Aagfv 8310 G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 41(1)Section 68

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short, the ld. CIT(A)] dated 06/03/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2009-10. The assessee has raised following grounds ... appeal: “1. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred in law and on fact to decide appellant’s appeal ex parte and that to without verifying the fact that whether the notice of hearing is served upon the appellant? 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi has erred

Pradeepsinh Bachubhai Gohil, Na vs. Arivs.Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Navsari

In the result, the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 33/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Shri Pradeepsinh Bachubhai Gohil, I.T.O., 304, Kailash Tower, N H No. 8, Ward-4, Vs. Samroli Chikhli, Dist.-Navsari, Navsari. Navsari-396521. Pan No. Aropg 7048 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 254(1)Section 69

Prem Chand Gupta, Alwar vs. ITO, Alwar

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

ITA 657/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 250

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 06.10.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- “1. That the appellate

Shweta Soni, Sikar vs. ITO Ward-3, Sikar

In the result, the appeal of the assesseeisallowed for statistical purpose

ITA 612/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Decision Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: Shri Vedant Agrawal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

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

filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) dated 09.08.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as "NFAC"] for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Kota, Dainik Navjyoti Building, Rawatbhata Road vs. Kota Sahakari Bhoomi Vikas Bank Ltd, Rawatbhata Road, Kota

In the result, this appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 606/JPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Vipul Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Kumar (CIT)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 36(1)(viia)Section 80P

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 04.08.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2013-14. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case, the learned CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi was justified in deleting the addition of Rs. 6,97,23,892/- was made on account of wrong provision of bad and doubtful debts. 2. The appellant craves to add, amend, alter, delete or liberty to raise additional

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 605/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

different orders of the ld. CIT(A) dated 11-07-2023 and 30-07-2023 National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [ hereinafter referred to as (NFAC) ] for the assessment year 2020-21 in the matters of Section u/s 143 (1) and Section 154 of the Act raising therein following grounds

Manoj Kumar Jain Prop. Ms Bajaj Re Rolling Mills, Kota vs. ITO(TDS), Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 593/JPR/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

BENCH : These appeals by the assessee are directed against the three separate orders dated 01.08.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment years 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19. The assessee has raised the following ... grounds :- ITA NO. 591/JP/2023 AY 2016-17 : 1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in dismissing the appeal by holding that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal as no reply is submitted in support of grounds of appeal filed ignoring that assessee

Manoj Kumar Jain Prop. Ms Bajaj Re Rolling Mills, Kota vs. ITO(TDS), Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 592/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

Manoj Kumar Jain, Prop. Ms Bajaj Re Rolling Mills, Kota vs. ITO(TDS), Kota

In the result, appeals of the assessee are disposed off accordingly

ITA 591/JPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 201Section 201(1)Section 206CSection 206C(1)Section 250

Kailash Chandra Sharma, Chotiyo Ki Dhani, Niwaru vs. Assessing Officer Ward 3 (1), ITO WD

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

ITA 589/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Gorav Sharma (C.A.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT)

Section 144

filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A) dated 14.10.2022, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [herein after referred to as "NFAC”] for the assessment year 2010-11. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Kailash Chandra Sharma vs. ITO "1. Under the facts ... first notice of hearing was received on 20.09.2019 and 28.05.2019 which the CIT (A) adjourned the case thereafter the appeal was migrated to the NFAC, due to new rules and regulation of receiving notice and we have received hearing notice in COVID period, and there after but some

Telecrats India Private Limited, Jaipur vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Jaipur

In the result, all the three appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 574/JPR/2023[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rohan Sogani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Anup Singh, Addl.CIT

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 154Section 2(24)(x)Section 36(1)(a)Section 36(1)(va)

Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal, Jhalawar vs. JCIT, Range-1, Kota

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 572/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. P. C. Parwal (CA)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Chaudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 269SSection 271D

JAYANTBHAI, AM This appeal filed by assesseeis arising out of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi dated 28/08/2023 [here in after (NFAC)/ ld. CIT(A) ] for assessment year 2010-11 which in turn arise from the order dated 05.03.2020 passed under section 271D of the Income ... Kota. 2 Sh. Ashok Kumar Porwal vs. JCIT 2. In this appeal, the assessee has raised following grounds: - “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271D of the Act at Rs. 31,78,000/- by making various

Kapil Gupta, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(4), Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 571/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JM & HON’BLE SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Sharma, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 143(2)Section 22Section 250Section 57

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 21.08.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That ... facts and in the circumstances of the case the ld. CIT (A), NFAC is wrong, unjust and has erred in law in confirming disallowance made by the ld. AO of claim of the appellant u/s 57 of the IT Act, 1961 in respect of interest paid

Prem Chand Yadav, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Jaipur

ITA 493/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur19 Dec 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: HON’BLE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Mohammed Shafi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT

Section 147Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 271FSection 5

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 31.05.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. That proceeding initiated

Atul Jayantilal Shah (HUF), Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, grounds of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 301/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalatul Jayantilal Shah (Huf) 611, 6Th Floor, C-Wing, Shreepati Castle, 208/210, 10-11Th Khetwadi Main Road, Mumbai-400 004 Pan: Aajha2797 ...... Appellant Vs. Ito 19(1)(2) Matru Mandir, Mumbai-400007 ..... Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha, Ld. DR

Section 250

GAGAN GOYAL, A.M: This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short “NFAC”) dated 27.12.2022 u/s. 250 of the Income Tax 2 Atul Jayantilal Shah (HUF) Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for A.Y. 2011-12. The assessee has raised the following grounds

M/S S. Sagar Enterprises, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Assessment Centre, Delhi

Accordingly, Ground No. 3 raised by the Appellant is allowed

ITA 2850/MUM/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri Rahul SardaFor Respondent: Dr. Kishor Dhule

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’). The Appellant has raised following grounds of appeal: 2. “1) The NATIONAL FACELESS APPEAL CENTRE (NFAC) has erred by upholding the order passed by learned assessing officer and dismissing the appeal filed by your appellant thereby upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.4 ... Appellant. 2) The NFAC failed to appreciate that the Appellant had submitted all details and documentary evidence in respect of the additions and the addition was sustained purely on an adhoc estimate basis. Hence, no penalty could be levied on the basis of the same. 3) Without prejudice

Neptunus Power Plant Services Private Limited, Navi Mumbai vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalore

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

ITA 2796/MUM/2023[AY 2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Dec 2023

Bench: Shri Aby T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Gagan Goyal, Am आयकर अपील सं/ I.T.A. No.2796/Mum/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2020-21) Neptunus Power Plant बिधम/ Adit, Cpc Services Pvt. Ltd Bangalore. Vs. A-554, Ttc Industrial Area, Midc Navi Mumbai, Mahape, Thane-400710. स्थधयी लेखध सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacn9274A (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Kartik Natarajan Revenue By: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr. Ar) सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 11/12/2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 18/12/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Aby T. Varkey, Jm: This Is An Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/(Nfac), Delhi Dated 14.06.2023 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Grounds Of Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: -

For Appellant: Shri Kartik NatarajanFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Kumar Ambastha (Sr

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 154Section 3

VARKEY, JM: This is an appeal preferred by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/(NFAC), Delhi dated 14.06.2023 for the assessment year 2020-21. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as under: - 1) “In the facts of the case ... under the circumstances, the Hon'ble NFAC erred in upholding the order dated January 24, 2023 passed by the Ld. CPC, Bengaluru u/s 154 r.w.s 143(1) of the Act. 2) In the facts of the case and under the circumstances, the Hon'ble NFAC erred in not appreciating