“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

M/S. M.D.Infra Developers, Surat vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(3), Surat

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

ITA 348/SRT/2022[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Jan 2023AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini(Physical Hearing) M/S M.D. Infra Developers, I.T.O., Block No. 128, Mamta Park Ward 2(3)(3), Surat Vs. Society, Near Shivani Show Aayakar Bhavam, Room, Varachha Road, Kapodara, Majuragate, Surat. Surat-395006. Pan No. Aasfm 7357 A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent/ Revenue

Section 254(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 26/08/2022 for the Assessment year (AY) 2015-16 wherein the assessee has raised following grounds

Divisional Ajmer Technical Institute Association, Merta City vs. Commisioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4/JODH/2023[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur18 Jan 2023AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 143(1)

Both these appeals filed by the assessee are directed against the orders passed by the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (for short ‘’NFAC’’), Delhi and both the appeals relate to the assessment year 2019-20. 2. We notice that both the appeals relate to the very same intimation

Darshan Kumar Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-67(6), New Delhi

ITA 2642/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 54F

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 02.09.2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2011-12. The assessee has raised following revised and concised grounds of appeal: “1. That the appellant

Mukesh Mittal, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 58(3), Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1396/DEL/2022[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2023AY 2020-21

Section 143(1)Section 250

thereby raising a demand of Rs.48,390/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee filed appeal before the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) who vide order dated 28.05.2022 in DIN and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/1043237109(1) dismissed the appeal of the assessee. Aggrieved by the order passed by NFAC, assessee ... accordingly the demand was raised. He submitted that against the demand Mukesh Mittal vs ITO 3 raised, assessee had filed an appeal before NFAC and to support his contentions, he had uploaded the relevant documents but without considering the submissions of the assessee, the order of AO was upheld

Shri Kishorchandra Mohanlal Khambhayata, Rajkot vs. The ITO, Ward-1 (1) (1), Rajkot

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

ITA 135/RJT/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, ARFor Respondent: Shri B.D. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER : This appeal is filed by the Assessee against the order dated 08.10.2021 passed by the CIT (A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi for the Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Ld. CIT(A) erred

Smt. Sumariben R. Odedara, Porbandar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Porbandar

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is hereby allowed

ITA 288/RJT/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot18 Jan 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Annapurna Gupta (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 44A

Gupta appearing for the Revenue supported the order of the Lower Authorities and held that no documents are produced before Ld. NFAC Authorities. Therefore the addition made by the Assessing Officer does not require any interference and pleaded to uphold the same. 6. We have given our thoughtful consideration

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1)(1), Surat vs. Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 307/SRT/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.274 & 307/Srt/2022 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years: (2013-14 & 2017-18) (Virtual Court Hearing) Assistant Commissioner Of Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Income-Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Vs. Enviro House, Opp. Bank Of Surat, Room No.108, 1St Floor, Maharshtra, Ghod Dod Road, Surat- Aayakar Bhawan, Majura 395007 Gate, Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Aaace 8700 C (Assessee) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Revenue, pertaining to Assessment Years (AY) 2013-14 & 2017-18, are directed against the separate orders passed by the Learned National Faceless Appeal, Centre (“NFAC” for short) / ld. CIT(A), which in turn arise out of separate assessment orders passed by the Assessing Officer under section 143(3) r.w.s

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle -1(1)(1), Surat vs. Enviro Control Pvt. Ltd., Surat

In the result, the appeal is partly allowed

ITA 274/SRT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Jan 2023AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)Section 14A

Ashish Seth, Delhi vs. ITO, Circle-9(1), C.R.Building, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 2640/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 69A

total income was determined at Rs.16,84,200/-. Aggrieved by the order of AO, assessee carried the matter before National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi and order was passed by NFAC on 21.09.2022 in DIN & Order No.ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022- 23/104577797(1) wherein the appeal was dismissed. Aggrieved by the order ... NFAC, assessee was now in appeal and has raised the following grounds: 1. “The assessee filed the return of income of Rs.9,07,200/-. During the course of assessment under section 142(1) the AO was added Rs.7,77,000/- as income due to the deposit of cash

Arvind Cherambath Nair, Gurgaon vs. Circle-1(1), Gurgaon

Appeal is dismissed as withdrawn

ITA 181/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Chandra Mohan Garg & Sh. Pradip Kumar Kediaassessment Year: 2017-18 Arvind Cherambath Nair Vs. Circle -1 (1) 507A, Dlf Golf Links, Gurgaon Phase-5, Gurgaon Pan No.Aakpn5463A (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 10Section 154Section 246A

Pronouncement: 17/01/2023 ORDER PER PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA, AM: This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the National Faceless Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 22.11.2021 pertaining to A.Y.2017-18. 2. The grievance of the assessee read as under :- 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) grossly erred

Sana Shah, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward-1, Panipat

Appeal stands dismissed

ITA 1702/DEL/2022[2018=-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Anubhav Sharmasana Shah, Vs. Ito, 744-745, Model Town, Ward-1, Panipat, Haryana Panipat (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan: Bopps2855R

For Appellant: Ms. Aditi S. Mann, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Kajal Singh, Sr. DR

Section 10Section 10(37)Section 143(3)Section 145BSection 28Section 5Section 54(4)Section 56Section 56(2)(viii)

present appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 31.05.2022 of Ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority) arising out of an appeal before it against the assessment order dated 26.04.2021 passed u/s 143(3) of the Income

Parevartan Educare Foundation, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT Exemption Circle, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1057/DEL/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. B. R. R. Kumar & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S.I.T.A. No. 1057/Del/2022 (A.Y 2017-18)

Section 11Section 12ASection 143Section 250

ORDER PER YOGESH KUMAR U.S., JM This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order National Faceless Appeal Center [hereinafter referred to ‘NFAC’) dated 14/03/2022 for assessment year 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal:- 2 Parevartan Educare Foundation 1. That That ... submit the copy of condonation order passed by the CIT(E) Lucknow. 4. That the CIT (A) through the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) has erred both the facts and in law by not considering the reply dt.29.09.2021 wherein the assessee has informed that the CIT Exemption (Lucknow) has condoned

Gajmukhi Credit Cooperative Society Limited, Pali vs. ITO, Ward-4, Pali

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

ITA 121/JODH/2022[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur16 Jan 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri B. R. Baskaran & Dr. S. Seethalakshmi

Section 68

BASKARAN, AM The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dated 17-05-2022 passed by Ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi and it relates to the assessment year 2017- 18. The assessee has also filed a stay application seeking stay of outstanding demand. 2. None appeared on behalf

Kuchhal Udyog, South Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-42(1), New Delhi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1810/DEL/2022[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2023AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 143(1)

BHARAT, JM: This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.06,2022, pertaining to the assessment year 2019-20. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal: “1. Adhoc disallowance of expenss

Shri Avijit Shastri, Indor vs. The ITO 4(1), Indore

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

ITA 197/IND/2022[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore16 Jan 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 24Section 80C

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order dated 09.06.2022 passed by the Ld. CIT-(Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi for A.Y. 2009-10. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee read as under: “1. On the facts and circumstances

Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(2)(1), Surat

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

ITA 90/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Pawan Singhआ.अ.सं./Ita No.90/Srt/2022 (Ay 2018-19) (Hearing In Physical Court) Nirav Bipinbhai Vaghasiya Income Tax Officer, 59, Shradha Deep Society, Ward-3(2)(1), Surat Vs Singanpore, Causewayroad, Ved Road, Surat-395004 Pan No: Amupv 4454 H अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 उ"घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of 16.01.2023 Pronouncement Order Under Section 254(1) Of Income Tax Act Per Pawan Singh: 1. This Appeal By Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [For Short To As “Nfac”/Ld.Cit(A) Dated 28.12.2021 For Assessment Year 2018-19, Which In Turn Arises Out Assessment Order Passed By Asst. Director Of Income Tax, Centralized Processing Centre (Cpc) Bengaluru Under Section 143(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’) Dated 23.10.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal:- “1. In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Nirav B Vaghasiya Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Same Is Duly Reflected In Form No 26As Of The Appellant. 1.1 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing The Tds Credit Of Rs.2,21,000 Though The Capital Gain On Sale Of Property Was Offered For Taxation In The Hands Of Partnership Form & No Revenue Loss Incurred To The Department. 1.2 In Law & In Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Learned Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre Erred In Not Allowing Tds Credit To The Appellant Though No Income Against Such Tds Credit Was Earned By The Appellant Against Such Tds Credit.

Section 143(1)Section 154Section 194ISection 254(1)

PAWAN SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER: 1. This appeal by assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [for short to as “NFAC”/Ld.CIT(A) dated 28.12.2021 for assessment year 2018-19, which in turn arises out assessment order passed by Asst. Director of Income Tax, Centralized Processing ... either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.” 2. On perusal of records it shows that impugned order was passed by NFAC, Delhi/Ld. CIT(A) on 28.12.2021, however, assessee filed appeal before Tribunal on 19.04.2022. Thus, there is delay of fifty-two delay in filing appeal

Malkitsingh Ishawarsingh Kaushal, Ahwa vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 3, Navsari

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

ITA 15/SRT/2022[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Surat16 Jan 2023AY 2018-19

Bench: Shripawan Singh, Jm &Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपीलसं./Ita No.15/Srt/2022 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: (2018-19) (Virtual Court Hearing) Malkitsingh Ishawarsingh Income Tax Officer, Kaushal Dungari Faliya Atnpo Ward-3, Navsari Vs Ahwa, Tal .Ahwa Dist. Dang, Ahwa-394710 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Adypk 6556 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Shah, C.A Respondent By :Shri Ashok B.Koli, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Shah, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Ashok B.Koli, CIT-DR

Section 143(1)

appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the assessment year 2018-19, is directed against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’)/ld. CIT(A) dated 06.11.2021, which in turn arises out of assessment order passed by Asst. Director of Income Tax, CPC, Bengaluru

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 3740/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 1995-96] Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Vs Acit, C/O-Shri Hari Goel, Circle-37(1), Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi. New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpg4102M Appellant Respondent [Assessment Year : 1995-96] Dcit, Vs Shri Sanjeev Kumar, Circle-37(1), C/O-Shri Hari Goel, New Delhi. Up-26, Pitam Pura, New Delhi-110088. Pan-Aekpk3363A Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Salil Agarwal, Sr.Adv. & Shri Shailesh Gupta, Ca Respondent By Shri H.K.Choudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 04.01.2023 Date Of Pronouncement 13.01.2023 Order

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Sh. Sanjeev Kumar, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 2658/DEL/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jan 2023AY 1995-96

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 234A

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K.BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL

Mohan Lal Kiri, Kanker vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 81/RPR/2021[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur13 Jan 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Dr. Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 81/Rpr/2021 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mohan Lal Kiri Huf Main Road, Charama, Kanker (C.G.) Pan : Aaghm3140K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.K. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri G.N Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 40A(2)(b)

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 29.09.2021, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ... order on the following grounds of appeal before us : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case the learned CIT(Appeals), NFAC is not justified in sustaining the disallowance of interest of Rs.3,38,063/-, being interest @3% paid to relatives (Actual paid 18% -allowed