“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

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO Ward3(2)(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 857/DEL/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

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

Both appeals of the Assessee arise out of the separate orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as [‘Ld. CIT(A)’] both dated 30/01/2023 against the orders dated 31/03/2014 & 29/03/2016 passed by ITO, Ward-1(1) & Ward- Page

Raj Kumar Karanwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO Ward 3(2)(2), Muzaffarnagar

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed

ITA 856/DEL/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY (Vice President), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)

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

Shivani Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-2(2)(4), Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 729/DEL/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M. Balaganeshassessment Year: 2011-12 Shivani Gupta, Rag & Versus Income-Tax Officer, Associates, Chartered Ward 2(3), Ghaziabad. Accountants, 209, Jagdamba Tower, 13 Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi. Pan: Bkgps1460R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessment Year: 2012-13 Versus Income-Tax Officer, Shivani Gupta, Rag & Associates, Chartered Ward 2(2)(4), Ghaziabad. Accountants, 209, Jagdamba Tower, 13 Preet Vihar Commercial Complex, New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Sh. Raghuvendra, Advocate Revenue By : Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.11.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 28.11.2023 Per Saktijit Dey, Vice-

For Appellant: Sh. Raghuvendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 147

pronouncement: 28.11.2023 PER SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE-PRESIDENT Captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to assessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. ITA No. 3010/Del/2022 (A.Y. 2011-12): 2. At the time of hearing, learned counsel appearing

Shivani Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Ghaziabad

In the result, both the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3010/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Sh. Raghuvendra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sh. Anuj Garg, Sr. DR

Section 147

Sennheiser Electronics India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. Circle-4(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1942/DEL/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Us, The Only Effective Issue To Be Decided In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Nfac Was Justified In Not Granting Refund Of The Dividend Distribution Tax (Ddt) In The Facts & Circumstances Of The Instant Case. 4. We Have Heard The Rival Submissions & Perused The Materials Available On Record. The Assessee Is Engaged In The Business Of Sales & Distribution Of Headphones, Microphones, Monitoring Systems, Tour Guide Systems & Aviation Headsets. It Imports Goods From Sennheiser Group Companies For Reselling Through Its Distributors In India. The Return Of Income For The Assessment Year 2019-20 Was Filed By The Assessee Company On 27.11.2019 Which Was Later Revised On 09.03.2020 Declaring Total Income Of Rs.3,77,00,470/-. 5. During The Year Under Consideration The Assessee Distributed Dividends To Its Share Holders (Senniheiser Global Operations Gmbh, Germany & Sennheiser Electronic Gmbh & Co. Kg

Section 115Section 143(1)

This appeal of the Assessee arises out of the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as [‘NFAC’] in Appeal No.CIT(A),Gurgaon- 1/10181/2020-21, dated 22/07/2020 against the order passed by Central Processing Unit, Bengaluru u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Page ... assessee has raised several grounds of appeal before us, the only effective issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the NFAC was justified in not granting refund of the Dividend Distribution Tax (DDT) in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. 4. We have heard

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 38/RPR/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No. 35 & 38/Rpr/2023) (Assessment Year: 2014-15 & 2016-17) Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, V S.P. Buildcon Private Limited Circle-1(1), S Ff-06, Shyam Plaza, Pandri Bus Stand, Aayakar Bhawan, Civil Lines, Raipur Raipur Pan: Aajcs0653H (अपीलाथ" /Applicant) . (""यथ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Amit M. Jain, Adv. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 05-09-2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 28-11-2023

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

Member: The captioned two appeals are filed by the department pertains to same assessee against the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi, dated 07/12/2022 for AY 2014-15 & dated 15/12/2022 for AY 2016-17. Which in turn arose from the orders of ACIT- 1(1), Raipur ... under: Grounds of Appeal for AY 2014-15 1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(Appeals), NFAC is justified in deleting the addition of Rs.5,00,000/- made by the A.O by way of disallowance out of provision made under the head

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur vs. S.P. Buildcon Pvt. Ltd., Raipur

ITA 35/RPR/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Amit M. Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 2(22)(e)Section 40Section 43C

M/S. Jai Enterprises, Raipur vs. Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 107/RPR/2021[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Nov 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am (Ita No.107/Rpr/2021) (Assessment Year: 2019-20)

For Appellant: Shri Nikhilesh Begani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250Section 36(1)(va)Section 43B

Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned Appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2019-20 dated 17.12.2021, which in turn resulted from the order of Ld. Assistant Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre

Ranajitbhai Balvantbhai Patel, Olpad vs. ITO - Ward 2(2)(4), Majura Gate

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

ITA 646/SRT/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Ranajitbhai Balvantbhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, At & Post Arthan, Tal: Olpad, Ward -2(2)(4), District – Surat, 394130. Surat. Pan : Bxjpp1448N Appellant Respondednt

Section 249(4)Section 254(1)Section 69A

directed against the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [in short ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] / Learned National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘the NFAC’), Delhi, dated 22.09.2023 for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case ... equal to amount of advance tax, which was payable. And that the assessee has not paid advance tax, while filing the appeal before him/ld. NFAC, therefore appeal is not liable to be admitted as per provision of section 249(4) of the Income

Assistant Commissioner of Income -Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Surat, Majura Gate vs. Shree Aradhna Urban Co Op Credit Society Ltd, Varachha Road

In the result, this appeal of revenue is dismissed

ITA 630/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) A.C.I.T., Shree Aradhna Urban Co Op Credit Circle-1(1)(1), Society Ltd., Vs. Surat. 128-129, Super Diamond Market, Varachha Road, Surat-395006. Pan No. Aaopc 8463 B Appellant/Revenue Respondent/Assessee

Section 144Section 194A(3)(v)Section 254(1)Section 80P(2)(d)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the Revenue 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 21/07/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2014-15. The revenue has raised following grounds

Dilip Bhikhubhai Chauhan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2)(2), Surat

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

ITA 509/SRT/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Surat28 Nov 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Hybrid Hearing) Dilip Bhikhubhai Chauhan, I.T.O., Devkrupa Society, Opp. Dholakiya Ward-3(2)(2), Vs. Garden, Katargam, Surat-395004. Aayakar Bhavan, Majura Pan No. Aaopc 8463 B Gate, Surat. Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 144Section 254(1)

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 28/06/2023 for the Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12. In the appeal the assessee has challenged

Ashish Sharma, Gopal Pura Bye - Pass Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Statue Circle, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 586/JPR/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 292BSection 69A

This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Here in after referred as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2009-10 dated 24.08.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO, passed under Section 147/144 of the Income ... Learned Assessing Officer the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The CIT(A), National 7 Ashish Sharma vs. ITO Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, vide order dated 24/08/2023, dismissed the appeal of the assessee without appreciating the submissions made in this regard by the assessee and the documentary

Ram Dev Chandelwal, S/O Shri Heera Lal Chandelwal vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - Bundi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 585/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl.CIT) a

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [Here in after referred as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2017-18 dated 17.07.2023, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO, passed under Section ... assumed turnover. Aggrieved with the order of the Learned Assessing Officer the assessee preferred appeal before the Learned CIT(A). The Learned CIT(A), NFAC,Delhi, vide appeal order dated 17/07/2023, has confirmed the additions made by the Learned Assessing Officer and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The assessee

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur vs. Indian Network for Development Exchange Private Limited, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 547/JPR/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: Shri Manish Agrawal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri A.S. Nehra (Addl. CIT)

Section 40

Revenue is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 28.06.2023, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[herein after referred to as (NFAC)] for the assessment year 2012-13. 2. The Revenue has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Whether on the facts and in the circumstances

Mayank, Jaipur vs. ACIT Circle 7, Jaipur

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

ITA 510/JPR/2023[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2016-2017

Bench: Or At The Time Of Hearing.

For Appellant: Shri Ashok Kanodiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehra, Addl. CIT

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 154Section 250Section 68

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.06.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act, 1961 for the assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Under ... savings bank account. Aggrieved by the order of assessment, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. CIT (A). The ld. CIT (A) NFAC dismissed the appeal of the 3 Shri Mayank, Jaipur. assessee ex-parte vide order dated 26.06.2023 as the assessee has neither appeared nor filed required details/information

Shankar Engineering Works Foundry, Jaipur vs. ITO WD 4(2), Jaipur

ITA 278/JPR/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-2018

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

For Appellant: Shri Shrawan Kumar Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT)

Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 234ASection 250Section 50C

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 18.03.2023 of ld. CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Notice ... illegal Notice U/s 148 is illegal Notice U/s 148 is illegal: Notice U/s 148 is illegal : : : The Ld. CIT(A) (NFAC) has grossly erred in confirming the impugned order u/s 147 rws 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961 dated 29/03/2022 as well as Notice issued u/s 148 dated 25/03/2021

ITO, Jaipur vs. Gotam Agarwal, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 256/JPR/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Nov 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri Rajeev Sogani, CA &For Respondent: Shri A.S.Nehra, Addl. CIT fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 68

SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 08.10.2022 of ld. CIT (A), National Facelessd Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi passed under section 250 of the IT Act for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds :- 1. Whether ... facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. CIT (A) NFAC Delhi is justified ignoring the material evidences that the books of accounts were rejected by considering them non reliable, fabricated, manipulated and made to serve the sole purpose of explaining undisclosed income since the entire cash

Ghevarchand M. Surana, Thane vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Thane

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

ITA 2641/MUM/2023[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Sshrighevarchand.M.Surana Vs Ito-Ward-2(4), 203, B-3, Sector-4, Ashar It Park, Mira Road (E), 6Th Floor, Road No. Thane-401107, 16Z, Wagle Maharashtra. Industrial Estate, Thane-400604. Maharashtra. Pan/Gir No. : Aajps6676B Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri.Shashank Mehta.ARFor Respondent: Shri.Joginder Singh.Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 148

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi /CIT(A) passed u/sec143(3)r.w.s147 and u/sec 250 of the Ac. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: Ghevarchand M Surana, Mumbai

Pravinkumar Pratapchand Shah, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 34(2)(7), Kautilya Bhavan

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

ITA 2576/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Ms. Padmavathy Spravinkumarpratapchand Vs Ito, Ward 34(2)(7), Shah,3Rd Floor, 13/15, 746, Kautilya Bhavan, Anantwadi, Atmaram C-41, To C-43, Merchant Road, G-Block Bkc, Chira Bazar, Bandra (E) Mumbai-400002. Mumbai-400051. Pan/Gir No. : Aapps9017G Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Lawanya Rajpurohit.ARFor Respondent: Shri Joginder Singh,. Sr.DR

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 143(3) r.w.s 147 and U/sec 250 of the Ac. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1) On the facts ... circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A)- NFAC has erred in sustaining the addition made by the AO, without appreciating that the ld. AO has erred in invoking provisions of Sec 147. Pravinkumar Pratapchand Shah, Mumbai. 2) On the facts and in circumstances of the case

M/S. Fortune Credit Capital Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT, Circle -(1)(2), Mumbai

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2194/MUM/2023[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2023AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Narender Kumar Choudhry () & Shri S Rifaur Rahman ()

For Appellant: Present for the Shri Ujjawal KumarFor Respondent: Chavhan SR. AR

Section 131Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

Choudhry (JM): This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 10/05/2023 impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi / Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) [in short, Ld. Commissioner ] under section 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short