← All Phrases

“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
43
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
34
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
34
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
32
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
21
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
14
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
13
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
11
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

Anantpur Kalpana, Gangavathi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 541/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Anantpur Kalpana, Vs. Ito, 1/1/1, Mahalaxmi Enterprises, Ward – 1, Hosakeri, Building Bamboo Bazar, Koppal. Gangavathi – 583 227, Karnataka. Pan : Clepk 8005 L Assessee By : Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 16.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is Proprietrix Of A Business In The Name & Style Of Mahalaxmi Enterprises. The Business Consists Of Dealing In Beedi, Tea Powder & Pan Masala. For Assessment Year 2017-18, The Assessee Filed Return Of Income Declaring Total Income Of Rs.4,49,520/-. In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings, The Ao Noticed That There Were Several Cash Deposits In The Two Bank Accounts Of The Assessee. Out Of The Aforesaid Cash Deposits, The Ao Culled Out, The Deposits That Was Made Of Bank Notes That Were Declared As Not Legal Tender Owing To Demonetization Of Currency. The Details Of The Total Cash Deposits Made By The Assessee In Her Bank Account & The Cash Deposits Of Cash/Currency Notes That Were Declared As Not Page 2 Of 8

For Appellant: Shri. Raghavendra Chakravarthy, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 115BSection 68

Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 16.08.2021 of CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee is an individual. She is proprietrix of a business in the name and style of Mahalaxmi Enterprises

Mallika Iyengar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 512/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Mallika Iyengar, Vs. Ito, No.405, 12Th Main, Rmv Extention, Ward – 6(3)(2), Sadhashivnagar, Bengaluru. Bengaluru – 560 080. Pan : Acopi 2387 J Assessee By : Shri. K. S. Nagesh, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.08.2021 Of Cit(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Only Issue That Arises For Consideration In This Appeal Is As To Whether The Cit(A) Was Justified On Addition Of Rs.2 Lakhs & Rs.5 Lakhs Respectively Under Section 68 Of The Income Tax Act 1961. 3. The Assessee Is An Individual. She Is A Spinster & Lives With Her 86 Years Old Father. During The Previous Year Relevant To Assessment Year 2017- 18, The Assessee Deposited A Sum Of Rs.30 Lakhs In Cash In Her Bank A/C. The Source Of Funds For Cash Deposit To The Extent Of Rs.22 Lakhs Received From Assessee’S Father & Two Sisters Of Rs.13 Lakhs, Rs.4 Lakhs & Rs.5 Lakhs Was Accepted By The Ao. The Ao Did Not Accept The Explanation Of Source Of Cash Page 2 Of 5

For Appellant: Shri. K. S. Nagesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 133(6)Section 68

Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 12.08.2021 of CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The only issue that arises for consideration in this appeal is as to whether the CIT(A) was justified

Ganeshan Manimaran, Bangalore vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), Bangalore

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

ITA 351/BANG/2021[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Dec 2021AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevanassessment Year : 2017-18 Ganeshan Manimaran, Vs. Ito, No.405, Elegantsplendor 102 1St Floor, Ward – 1(2)(2), 7Th Main, Hrbr Layout, 1St Block, Bengaluru. Kalyanagar, Bengaluru – 560 043. Pan : Acxpm 9353 R Assessee By : Shri. Sanjay B Chikkamath, Ca Revenue By : Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel For The Department Date Of Hearing : 09.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.12.2021 O R D E R Er N. V. Vasudevanthis Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against Order Dated 12.05.2021 Of Cit(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Assessee Is An Individual. He Filed Return Of Income For Assessment Year 2017-18 Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.11,54,750/-. The Assessee Had Deposited Cash In 2 Bank Accounts Maintained By Him In Canara Bank, Cox Town, Bengaluru, Totaling A Sum Of Rs.30,30,318/-. The Assessee Was Called Upon To Explain The Source Of Funds Out Of Which The Aforesaid Cash Deposits Were Made Especially During The Demonetization Period. Since There Was No Response From The Assessee, The Cit(A) Added A Sum Of Rs.30,30,318/- As Unexplained Cash Deposits Under Section 68 Of The Act & Computed Tax Liability As Per The Provisions Of Section 115Bbe Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called ‘The Act’). Page 2 Of 4

For Appellant: Shri. Sanjay B Chikkamath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for the Department
Section 115BSection 249Section 68

Vasudevan, Vice President This is an appeal filed by the assessee against order dated 12.05.2021 of CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The assessee is an individual. He filed return of income for Assessment Year 2017-18 declaring a total income