“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

Setech Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 5759/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

Setech Electronics Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 3(4), Noida

In the result, the appeal No

ITA 5758/DEL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Feb 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Anil Chaturvedi & Shri N.K. Choudhry

For Appellant: Sh. Neelesh Kumar Jain, Ld. CAFor Respondent: Sh. Pradeep Singh Gautam, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 249(4)(b)Section 250Section 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘H’ NEW DLEHI BEFORE SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI N.K

Bhagat Parkash Kamal Sharma, Jammu vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1 (1), Jammu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 184/ASR/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 127Section 127(2)Section 144Section 249(2)Section 250Section 68

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), NFAC, Delhi,[in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] bearing appeal DIN & Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2021-22/1036267101(1), date of order 09.10.2021, the order passed u/s 250 of the Income ... dated 01.10.2019 and the current jurisdiction is fixed in ITO Ward-1(1), Jammu. Accordingly, the appeal order was passed by the NFAC. So, the appeal is under jurisdiction of ITAT, Amritsar Bench. I.T.A. No.184/Asr/2021 3 Assessment Year: 2013-14 4. Brief fact of the case is that

Charanjeet Singh Garcha, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 14/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 14/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Charanjeet Singh Garcha Behind G.T Tower, Vip Road, Puraina, Chhatisgarh-492 001 Pan : Ahgpg3736N .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Assistant Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.). ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Abhishek Mahawar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44ASection 68

present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.11.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ... assessment year 2016-17. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: “1. That CIT Appeals-NFAC has erred in both fact and in law in confirming the addition of Rs.17,00,000/- made by the Assessing Officer u/s.68 of the Income

M/S Airlink International, B-6, Shaktesh Apartment, Moti Doongri Road, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ITO, Ward-5(2), Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 401/JPR/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur07 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

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

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Prakash Meena, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194CSection 194HSection 44A

ORDER PER: SANDEEP GOSAIN, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 13.09.2022 for the assessment year 2017-18. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- 1. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred ... upholding the adjustment made by AO (CPC) in processing the return u/s 143(1)/154 of the Act. 2. The ld. CIT (A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the adjustment of Rs. 1,26,459/- made by AO (CPC) by applying n.p. rate

Agra Development Authority, Uttarpardesh vs. DCIT, Exemption Circle Gzbd, Gzbd

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

ITA 1897/DEL/2021[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Kanv Bali

Section 250

filed by the assessee for assessment year 2013-14 against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC] Delhi, dated 09.11.2021. 2 Agra Development Authority 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :- “1. Because ld. CIT (A) [NFAC] has been ... then CIT (A) admitted the appeal and issued notice for hearing in response to which appellant filed written argument before the then CIT (A). NFAC thus erred in dismissing appeal as not being admitted. 3. Because the order appealed is contrary to the facts, law and principles of natural justice

Abhinav Subhangbhai Malavi, Surat vs. The Assistant Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bangaluru

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

ITA 386/SRT/2022[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Feb 2023AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Virtual Hearing) Abhinav Subhagbhai Malavi, Assistant Director Of Suvas 6, Arogya Nagar Society, Opp. Income Tax, Vs. Shree Nandan Hospital, Athwalines, Cpc, Bengaluru. Surat-395001. Pan No. Ablpm 1869 K Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 154Section 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 15/11/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2021-22 2. At the time of hearing

Jayantilal Ambaram Patel HUF, Surat vs. Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Cir.2(3), Surat

In the result, this appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 327/SRT/2022[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat06 Feb 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh(Virtual Hearing) Jayantilal Ambaram Patel Huf, A.C.I.T., 5, Western Seven Seas, Behind Circle-2(3), Vs. Gangeshwar Temple, Opp. Saint Surat. Mark School, Adajan, Surat, Gujarat- 395009. Pan No. Aafhj 0354 R Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 10(37)Section 254(1)Section 271(1)(c)

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 28/09/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2010-11 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds

M/S Nigam Jewels Pvt. Ltd., H-45, Sez 1, Riico Industrial Area, Sitapura, Jaipur vs. CPC, Bangalore/ ACIT/DCIT, Circle-7, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 356/JPR/2022[2020-21]Status: HeardITAT Jaipur06 Feb 2023AY 2020-21

Bench: Due Date Of Filing Of Return. 2. The Appellant Craves To Alter, Amend & Modify Any Ground Of Appeal. 3. Necessary Cost Be Awarded To The Assessee.”

For Appellant: Shri P. C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Mirza Azhar Baig (JCIT)

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

SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal is filed by the assessee aggrieved from the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (herein after referred as “ NFAC” ), Ld. CIT(A) for the assessment year 2020-21 dated 06.09.2022. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “1. The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC ... Necessary cost be awarded to the assessee.” 3. The assessee has also raised additional ground which reads as under:- “The Ld. CIT(A), NFAC has erred on facts and in law in confirming the addition of Rs. 1,11,230/- u/s 36(1)(va) on account of delayed payment

Om Prakash, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 93/DEL/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Feb 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu & Shri Saktijit Deyassessment Year: 2016-17

ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY: JUDICIAL MEMBER: Captioned appeal by the assessee arises out of order dated 15.11.2022 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi pertaining to assessment year 2016-17. 2 ITA No.4043/Del./2018 2. We have heard Shri Sanjay Kumar, learned Departmental Representative and perused the material

T K Thampi, Kakkanad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 1(5), Kochi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes with no orders as to cost

ITA 282/COCH/2021[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin03 Feb 2023AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora & Shri Sandeep Gosainshri T.K. Thampi The Income Tax Officer-1(5) 10/649, Thekkedathu House Range 1, Non-Corporate Vs. Kusumagiri, Kakkanad C.R. Building, I.S. Press Road Kochi 682030 Kochi 682018 Pan – Adapt1840N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri T.K. ThampiFor Respondent: Smt. J.M. Jamuna Devi, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)Section 68

Bench This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 27.10.2021 in appeal No. CIT(A), Kochi-21/10473/2016-17 for AY 2014-15. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: - “1. Assessing authority ... February, 2023. (Sanjay Arora) Judicial Member Cochin, Dated: 3rd February, 2023 Copy to: 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) -NFAC, Delhi 4. The CIT - 5. The DR, ITAT, Cochin 6. Guard File By Order

Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1)(1)

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

ITA 245/RJT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 245/Rjt/2022 िनधा"रणवष"/Asstt. Year:2015-16 Dhaval Maheshbhai Ganatra Vs. Ito Puka Park-1, B/H. Hudco Police Ward-3(1)(1), Chowky, Nr. Krishna Chawk Kothariya Rajkot Main Road, Rajkot-360002 Pan: Aompg8373G (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Vimal Desai, A.R. Revenue By : Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. Dr सुनवाईक"तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 18/01/2023 घोषणाक"तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 03/02/2023 आदेश/O R D E R Per Waseem Ahmed: The Captioned Appeal Has Been Filed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (In Short “Nfac”), Delhi On 16.08.2022 Arising In The Matter Of Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Here-In- After Referred To As "The Act") Relevant To The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee Has Raised Following Grounds Of Appeal: “1. The Assessment Order U/S. 144 Of The Act Is Bad In Law. 2. The Ld. Cit Appeal (Faceless) Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Disposing Of The Appeal On The Erroneous Premises That The Appellant Had Opted For & Closed This Appeal In Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme. 3. The Learned Assessing Officer Has Erred In Law As Well As On Facts In Making Addition Of Rs. 43,56,319/- U/S. 144 Of The Act.” A.Y. 2015-16 2 3. The Effective Issue Raised By The Assessee Is That The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal On The Wrong Assumption Of Fact That The Assessee Has Settled The Dispute Under Vivad Se Vishwas Scheme.

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Desai, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 16.08.2022 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under Section 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here-in- after referred

Shri Dhirendra Narbheram Sheth, Rajkot vs. The Income Tax Officer- Ward 2 (3) (5), Rajkot

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

ITA 181/RJT/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot03 Feb 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), MS. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Fenil Mehta, A.RFor Respondent: Shri B. D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139Section 140ASection 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 234B

filed at the instance of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi on 11.12.2021 arising in the matter of assessment order passed under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (here

Auto House, Piplani vs. ACIT/DCIT 4(1), Bhopal

Accordingly. The assessee is also directed to ensure participation in the hearings fixed by Ld. CIT(A) and do not seek unnecessary adjournments. Thus, ground No. 1 is allowed

ITA 107/IND/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2017-18 Auto House Piplani, Acit/Dcit-4(1) बनाम/ Bhopal Bhopal Vs. (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aaqfa 1942 F Assessee By Ms. Nisha Lahoti, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 15.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 234BSection 250(6)

Biyani,A.M.: Feeling aggrieved by appeal-order dated 30.03.2022passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi[“Ld. CIT(A)”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 31.12.2019 passed by learned ACIT/DCIT-4(1), Bhopal[“Ld. AO”] u/s 143(3) of Income

DCIT 3 (1), Bhopal vs. M/S Narmada Switchgear P Ltd, Bhopal

Accordingly, this ground is also dismissed

ITA 307/IND/2020[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore03 Feb 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Shri B.M. Biyaniassessment Year: 2013-14 Dcit-3(1) M/S Narmada Switchgear Bhopal Pvt. Ltd., बनाम/ Plot No.3, Industrial Estate, Govindpura Vs. Bhopal (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent / Revenue) Pan: Aabcn0635N Assessee By Shri S.S. Deshpande, Ca Revenue By Shri P.K. Mishra, Cit-Dr Date Of Hearing 09.11.2022 Date Of Pronouncement 03.02.2023

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, इंदौर "यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA

Navapura Urban Co-Op Credit & Consumer Society Ltd., Surat vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Surat

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 353/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat02 Feb 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) Navapura Urban Co-Op Credit & A.C.I.T., Consumer Society Ltd., Circle 1(2), Vs. 9/572, Siddhi, Kotsafil Main Road, Surat. Surat-395002 (Gujarat) Pan No. Aaaan 0539 N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(1)Section 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(d)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of learned National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi (NFAC)/learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short, the ld. CIT(A) dated 18/11/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2017-18. The assessee has raised following grounds

Madhu Bhaduri, Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-64(1), Delhi

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

ITA 1009/DEL/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Jan 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.

Section 143(3)

Pronouncement 31.01.2023 ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC]/ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [hereinafter referred to CIT (Appeals) dated 15.03.2022 for assessment year 2016-17. 2 Mrs. Madhu Bhaduri Vs. ACIT

Shri Gurbachan Singh S/O Shri.Gurdev Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward- 1 (4 ), Mansa

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

ITA 198/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Meena, AM: Both the appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 12.08.2022 & 18.08.2022 in respect of Assessment Year 2011-12. Gurbachan Singh v. ITO 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal

Shri Gurbachan Singh S/O Sh. Gurdev Singh, Mansa vs. Income Tax Officer Ward - 1 (4), Mansa

In the result, the quantum appeal in ITA No

ITA 197/ASR/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 69A

Navodia Times Private Limited, Jalandhar vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Jalandhar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA 192/Asr/2022 is

ITA 192/ASR/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar31 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 139(1)Section 143Section 143(1)Section 234CSection 250oSection 36

ORDER Per:Anikesh Banerjee, JM: The instant appeal of the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),NFAC, Delhi, [in brevity the ‘CIT (A)’] bearing appeal No.DIN& Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/1044118677(1), I.T.A. No.192/Asr/2022 2 Assessment Year: 2018-19 date of order 26.07.2022, the order