“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

ACIT, CC-14, Delhi vs. Mayfair Resorts India Ltd., New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed

ITA 2008/DEL/2021[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

For Appellant: Shri Yudhister Mehtani, CAFor Respondent: Shri Subhra Jyoti Chakraborty, CIT(DR)

Section 292CSection 69Section 69A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI

Arnav Travels, Visakhapatnam vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Visakhapatnam

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 96/VIZ/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam17 Aug 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Hon’Bleआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.96/Viz/2023 (ननधधारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2019-20) Arnav Travels Vs. Income Tax Officer 51-8-40/32/9 Ward-3(3) Krm Colony Backside Visakhapatnam Eenadu, Visakhapatnam [Pan : Aanfa2794G] (अपीलार्थी/ Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/ Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Madhukar Aves, DR

Section 139Section 139(1)Section 143(1)Section 43B

Judicial Member : This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)], National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi vide DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1049052185(1) arising out of assessment order passed u/s 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘Act’) dated

Bhavesh Nagjibhai Talpada, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 427/SRT/2023[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.427/Srt/2023 (Ay 2010-11) (Hearing In Physical Court) Bhavesh Nagjibhai Talpada Income Tax Officer, 40, Shraddha Row House, Ward-3(1)(2), Surat, Anavil Vs Opp. Sarthana Community Business Center , Adajan, Hall Sarthana, Surat-395006 Surat-395007 Pan No: Agept 4662 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 254(1)

following ground of appeal:- “1.On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of Assessing Officer in passing ex-parte order u/s 144 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts ... circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing appellate order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee. Bhavesh N Talpada 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject

P M Patel (HUF), Ved Road, Surat vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-3(2), Surat

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

ITA 422/SRT/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.422/Srt/2023 (Ay 2015-16) (Hearing In Physical Court) P.M. Patel (Huf) Deputy Commissioner Of 2-A-1, Gudluck Gems Income-Tax, Circle-3(2), Vs Building, Opp. Prannath Aaykar Bhavan, Majura Hospital, Ved Road, Surat- Gate, Surat-395001 395006 Pan No: Aajhp 0673 B अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, सुरत "यायपीठ, सुरत IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, “SMC” BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN

Vama Infra, Surat vs. Dy.CIT Cricle-2(1)(2), Surat

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

ITA 406/SRT/2023[2016-17]Status: HeardITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr Arjun Lal Sainiआ.अ.सं./Ita No.406/Srt/2023 (A.Y. 2016-17) (Hearing In Physical Court) Vama Infra Deputy Commissioner Of Income Ground Floor Veronaa Tax, Circle-2(1)(2), Aayakar Vs Residency, Harikrishna Bhawan, Majura Gate, Surat- Campus Vraj Chowk, Surat- 395001 395001 Pan : Aakfv 3593 K अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent

Section 144Section 250(6)Section 254(1)

following grounds of appeal: - “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned CIT(A), NFAC has erred in passing appellate order without providing reasonable opportunity of hearing to assessee and without adjudicating the matter on merits. Vama Infra

Neelu Mahansaria, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(3), Surat

In the result, the addition of undisclosed income under section 68 is deleted

ITA 197/SRT/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat17 Aug 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.197/Srt/2023 (Ay 2011-12) (Hearing In Physical Court) Neelu Mahansaria Income Tax Officer, 304, Green Park Apartment, Ward-1(3)(3), Surat Vs City Light Road, Nr. Corner Point Complex, Surat-395007 Pan No: Adbpm 2707 Q अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ" /Respondent

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 156Section 254(1)Section 68Section 69

action of Assessing Officer the assessee filed appeal before Ld. CIT(A). Before NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) assessee filed detailed written submission. The NFAC has not recorded the contents of written submission of assessee though in para-6, wherein the NFAC/Ld. CIT(A) noted that “appellant submitted written submissions 4 Neelu

Aptar Pharma India Pvt.Ltd(As Sucessor to Aptar Beauty and Home India Pvt.Ltd, Mumbai vs. NFAC, Delhi

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

ITA 632/MUM/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. Nfac (As Successor To Aptar Beauty & Home Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.) R 854 Ttc Industrial Area, Thane Vs. Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701

For Appellant: Shri M P Lohia &For Respondent: 19.05.2023

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 144CSection 153Section 92C

INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “K” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL, JM Aptar Pharma India Pvt. Ltd. NFAC (as successor to Aptar Beauty and Home Delhi India Pvt. Ltd.) R 854 TTC Industrial Area, Thane Vs. Belapur Road, Rabale, Navi Mumbai-400 701 PAN/GIR ... been filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (‘ld.CIT(A) for short), National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short) dated 16.02.2022 passed u/s.143(3) r.w.s. 144C(13) r.w.s. 144B of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act'), pertaining to the Assessment Year

Maruti Trading Co, Jagaatsinghpur vs. ITO Ward Paradeep, Paradeep

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 213/CTK/2023[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Before Shri George Mathan, Judicialassessment Year : 2015-16 Maruti Trading Co., Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Vs. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Ito, Ward, Paradeep. Jagatsinghpur. Jagatsinghpur. Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aalfm 3677 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 16/0 /08/2023 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri P.R.MohantyFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

assessee against the order of the ld This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld CIT(A), , NFAC, NFAC, Delhi Delhi dated 29.3.2023 in Appeal No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022 ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1051568864(1) for the assessment year for the assessment year 2015- 16 confirming the levy of penalty ... Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Maruti Trading Co., Panisalia, Jagatsinghpur 2. The Respondent:ITO, Ward, Paradeep. 3. The CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. Pr.CIT, Cuttack 5. DR, ITAT, Cuttack 6. Guard file. //// By order Sr.Pvt.secretary ITAT, Cuttack

M/S. Regent Hotels, Rourkela vs. ADIT, CPC, Bangalure

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

ITA 212/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack16 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George Mathanआयकर अऩीऱ सं/Ita No.212/Ctk/2023 (ननधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2017-2018) Regent Hotel, Vs Ito, Ward-5, Rourkela Bisra Road, Rourkela-769011 Pan No. :Aakfr 4838 D (अऩीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. ननधााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 16/08/2023 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 16/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, Passed In Din & Order No.Itba/Nfac/S/250/2022-23/1051193390(1) For The Assessment Year 2017-2018. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By 11 Days, For Which The Assessee Has Filed Condonation Petition, Wherein He Has Mentioned That Delay Was On Account Of Sickness Of Wife Of The Partner Of Assessee. The Reason Filed By The Assessee Has Not Been Found To Be False. Consequently, The Delay Of 11 Days In Filing The Present Appeal Is Condoned & The Appeal Is Admitted For Decision On Merits. 3. A Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On Account Of Delay. A Further Perusal Of The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A) Shows That The Ld. Cit(A) Has Reckoned The Delay From The Date Of The Intimation. However, The Appeal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr. DR

Section 154

आयकर अऩीऱीय अधधकरण, “एस.एम.सी” न्यायऩीठ,कटक IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH CUTTACK श्री जाजज माथन

Manish Kumar Mali, Bhilwara vs. ITO, Ward-5, Bhilwara

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

ITA 26/JODH/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri Dr. Dipak P. Ripotemanish Kumar Mali Vs. Ito, Ward-5, 31/306, Shivaji Bhilwara, Mohalla Nehru Road, Rajasthan. Bhilwara-311001, Rajasthan. Pan/Gir No. : Awcpm2698A Appellant .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Prerana Choudhary, Jcit Dr Date Of Hearing 16.08.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 16.08.2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Pavan Kumar Gadale Jm: The Assessee Has Filed The Appeal Against The Order Of The Order Of The National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi / Cit(A) Passed U/Sec 271B & 250 Of The Act. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Prerana Choudhary

Section 139(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 271B

PAVAN KUMAR GADALE JM: The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi / CIT(A) passed u/sec 271B and 250 of the Act. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts

Poonam, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2818/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

VICE-PRESIDENT: Captioned appeals by the assessee arise out of two separate orders, both dated 26.10.2022, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the assessment year 2011-12. 2 ITA Nos. 2817 & 2818/Del/2022 Assessment Yrs: 2011-12 2. While ITA No.2817/Del/2022 arises out of quantum proceedings

Poonam, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(1), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2817/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Vice- & Shri M Balaganesh

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

Legend Transport Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-15(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 1613/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya & Ms. Astha Chandra[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 234B

ORDER PER SHAMIM YAHYA, AM, This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), New Delhi, dated 20.05.2022 pertaining to Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. The grounds of appeal reads as under:- “1. That the Assessing Officer ought

S.D Technical Services Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT (OSD) Ward-22(2)Delhi, Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 1791/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Aug 2023AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri V. Rajkumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘H’ : NEW DELHI) SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and MS. ASTHA CHANDRA