“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

Jaypee Cement Corporation Limited, Noida vs. ACIT Circle 5(1)(1), Noida

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed and stay application of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1070/DEL/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri M. Balaganeshm/S. Jaypee Cement Vs. Acit, Corporation Ltd, Circle-5(1)(1), Sector-128, Gautam Noida Budh Nagar, Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Aaacz2168D

For Appellant: Shri Ajay Vohra, Sr. AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Waseem Arshad, CIT DR

Section 143(1)Section 270ASection 32A

192/Del/2023 for AY 2017- 1. 18, arises out of the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/ National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, [hereinafter referred to as ‗ld. CIT(A)‘, in short] in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051489193(1) dated 28.03.2023 against the order of assessment passed u/s 270A ... Income-tax Act, 1961 M/s. Jaypee Cement Corporation Ltd (hereinafter referred to as ‗the Act‘) dated 05.02.2022 by the NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred to as ‗ld. AO‘). 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- ―1. That the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre

Bahar Ahmed, Bijnor vs. ACIT, Najibabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1004/DEL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[A.Y. 2014-15]

For Appellant: Shri PC Yadav, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Kanav Bali, Sr. DR

Section 143Section 271Section 274

Date of Pronouncement : 11.09.2023 ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order dated 27.02.2023 by NFAC, Delhi pertaining to A.Y. 2014-15. 2 2. The solitary grievance of the assessee is that the NFAC erred in confirming the levy of penalty

P P Telecell Marketing Pvt Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle-14(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2849/DEL/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Us By 374 Days. The Assessee Had Filed Condonation Petition

Section 143(1)

BALAGANESH AM: This appeal of the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘Ld. CIT(A)’] in DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1035934361(1), Page 1 of 6 P. P. Telecell Marketing

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 231/RPR/2023[2016-17 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

respective orders passed by the CIT(Appeals), National 2 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.04.2023 which in turn arises from the respective intimations received from the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad u/s.200A ... chart” dated 06.09.2023, which revealed the period of delay involved in the filing of the respective appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, as under: 9 Nikita Kingrani Vs. DCIT, CPC-TDS, Ghaziabad ITA Nos.226 to 231/RPR/2023 5.1 Further, the Ld. AR has filed condonation applications dated

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 230/RPR/2023[2015-16 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 229/RPR/2023[2015-16 (First Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 228/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Fourth Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 227/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Third Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Nikita Kingrani, Durg vs. Income Tax Officer-TDS Ward, Bhilai, Durg

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in terms of our observations above

ITA 226/RPR/2023[2013-14 (Second Quarter)]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpia

For Appellant: Shri S.R. Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 200ASection 234ESection 249(3)

Chhattisgarh Power & Coal Benefication Ltd., Raipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(1), Bilaspur

In the result appeal of the assessee is partly allowed in terms of our observations herein above

ITA 105/RPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur11 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.105/Rpr/2023 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Shama, Sr

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250Section 37Section 40A(3)Section 56(2)(viib)

captioned appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 03.02.2023 which in turn arises from the order by Ld. Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) dated 07.12.2017 for A.Y.2015-16. The grounds of the appeal ... raised by the asseseee are as under: 2 1. That under the facts and the law, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi erred in passing order expartie and not considering the applications filed by the Appellant for adjournment for filing explanation of 11.01.2023 vide Acknowledgement

Precious Transport Service, Kochi vs. The ITO (TDS), Kochi

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

ITA 969/COCH/2022[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin11 Sept 2023AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Manomohan Dasprecious Transport Service The Income Tax Officer 8/2065, New Road Tds, Kochi Kottukulam Road Vs. Mattancherry, Kochi 682002 [Pan:Aadfp6839M] (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By: Shri Surendranath Rao, Ca Revenue By: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 11.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement: 11.09.2023 O R D E R Per:Sanjay Arora, Am This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Directed Against The Order Dated 21.09.2022 By The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Income Tax Department [Cit(A)], Dismissing It’S Appeal Contesting It’S Assessment Under Sections 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter "The Act") Dated 24.03.2011 For Assessment Year (Ay) 2004-05. 2. The Appeal Is Delayed By 8 Days, Which Is Suitably Explained Per A Sworn Affidavit Dated 23.11.2023 By Shri Daya Ram Singh, Managing Partner Of The Appellant-Firm. Hearing Was, Admitting The Appeal, Accordingly Proceeded With.

For Appellant: Shri Surendranath Rao, CAFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

first appellate authority on 17/10/2016 and, as it appears, there has occurred an error in the migration of the appeal to the NFAC. The assessee ought to have, rather than not responding, clarified matters to the ld. CIT(A). The impugned order is, nevertheless, null and void. We hold accordingly

Keshri Export, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3(3)(3), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 186/SRT/2023[20178-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat11 Sept 2023

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.186/Srt/2023 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: (2017-18) (Virtual Hearing) Keshri Export, Vs. The Ito, 123, Gurunagar Society, Opp. Baroda Ward-3(3)(1), Prestige, Varachha Road, Surat. Surat – 395006. (Assessee) (Respondent) "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aadfk3785D Assessee By Shri Hiren Vepari, Ca Respondent By Shri Milan Kamble, Sr. Dr 18/07/2023 Date Of Hearing Date Of Pronouncement 11/09/2023

Section 143(3)Section 5

against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (In short ‘NFAC’), Delhi, dated 04.10.2022, which in turn arises out of an assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) of the Income

Kailash Chand Yadav, 100, Kalu Baba Ki Dhani, Sheoshinghpur, Akoda, Phulera-303338 vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), Jaipur

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

ITA 82/JPR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur11 Sept 2023AY 2010-11

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)

Section 142(1)Section 148Section 69A

Learned CIT(A) but he did not accept the contention nor controvert the contention of the assessee. The assessee could not explain because of NFAC CIT(A). Therefore, it is our first chance where we can submit some credible evidences in support of our contention that the cash deposited

ACIT-2(1)(1), Mumbai vs. The Bombay Dyeing and Manufacturing Company Ltd., Mumbai

ITA 1895/MUM/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm The Bombay Dyeing & Manufacturing Company Acit -2(1)(2) Limited Room No.561, Neville House, Aayakar Bhavan, Vs. Maharishi Karve Marg, J.N. Heredia Marg, Mumbai-400 020 Ballard Estate, Mumbai-400 001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact2328K Assessee By : Shri Chaitanya Joshi & Ms. Sukanya Jayaram, Ars Revenue By : Shri S. Srinivasu, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing: 05.09.2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.09.2023

For Appellant: Shri Chaitanya Joshi &For Respondent: Shri S. Srinivasu, CIT DR

Section 143(3)Section 263

dated 28th March, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed on 31st October, 2021 by NFAC, Delhi under Section 143(3) read with section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) was allowed holding that when the tribunal has quashed the order

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Insurance Institute of India, Mumbai

ITA 1715/MUM/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, D.R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12A

aside the impugned orders both dated 21.03.2023 passed by the National ITA Nos.1714 & 1715/M/2023 2 M/s. Insurance Institute of India Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment years 2017-18 & 2018-19 on identically worded grounds inter-alia

DCIT (E)-1(1), Mumbai vs. Insurance Institute of India, Mumbai

ITA 1714/MUM/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri S Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: Mr. Ketan Vajani, C.AFor Respondent: Ms. Madhu Malti Ghosh, D.R

Section 11Section 11(2)Section 12Section 12A

Nipra Trading Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi

ITA 1620/MUM/2023[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Sept 2023AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh & Shri Gagan Goyalassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Nipra Trading Private National Faceless Appeal Limited, Centre (Nfac), 501, Corporate Arena, Delhi D.P. Piramal Road, Vs. Bangur Nagar S.O., Goregaon, Mumbai – 400 104 Pan: Aabcn1311K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Gautam R. Mota, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. Ashok Kumar Ambastha, D.R

Section 112Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 147Section 154Section 2Section 250

SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI GAGAN GOYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Nipra Trading Private National Faceless Appeal Limited, Centre (NFAC), 501, Corporate Arena, Delhi D.P. Piramal Road, Vs. Bangur Nagar S.O., Goregaon, Mumbai – 400 104 PAN: AABCN1311K (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Assessee by : Mr. Gautam ... assessee’) by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated 26.07.2021 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC) [Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi] (hereinafter referred to as CIT(A)] qua the assessment year 2011-12 on the grounds inter-alia that :- “The Appellant submits

The City Co -Op. Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, National E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 95/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO (Accountant Member), SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Pramod VaidhyaFor Respondent: Shri Ashwini D. Hosmani

Section 143(3)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 08.03.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19. 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Co-operative Credit Society formed ... interest income earned with the schedule bank/co- operative bank of Rs.2,18,19,027/-. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal

M/S Ravikiran Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Hubli

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 94/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

appeals filed by the assessee. The appeals in ITA No.92 & 93/PAN/2023 are directed against the separate orders of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 29.03.2023 for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19 respectively. The appeal in ITA No.94/PAN/2023 is directed against the order ... Agricultural Development Bank Ltd., 389 ITR 607 (P&H). 5. Being aggrieved by the above order of assessment, an appeal was filed before the NFAC, who vide impugned order confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer. 6. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal

M/S Ravikiran Co-Operative Credit Society Limited, Belagavi vs. National E - Assessment Centre, Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 93/PAN/2023[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Sept 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhurysl.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabhakar Anand DJ

Section 143(3)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)