← 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

Manoj Kumar Verma, Meerut vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Appeal is partly allowed

ITA 4212/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Satbeer Singh Godara & Shri S Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Manoj Kumar Verma, Vs. Nfac, Prop. Md Jewellers, 1103/2, Delhi Shastri Nagar, Meerut Pan: Aazpv9933A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By None Department By Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.01.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 08.01.2026 Order Per Satbeer Singh Godara, Jm This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2017-18, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [In Short, The “Cit(A)/Nfac”], Delhi’S Din & Order No. Itba/Nfac/S/250/2024-25/1067013650(1), Dated 25.07.2024 Involving Proceedings Under Section 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As ‘The Act’). Case Called Twice. None Appears At The Assessee’S Behest. He Is Accordingly Proceeded Ex-Parte. 2. Learned Departmental Representative Vehemently Argues That Both The Learned Lower Authorities Have Rightly Treated The Assessee’S Cash Deposits & Unsecured Loans Of Rs.92 Lakhs & Rs.17 Lakhs; Respectively, Under Section 69A & Section 68 Of The Act; In Assessment Order Dated 18.11.2019 As Upheld In The Lower Appellate Discussion. 3. We Have Given Our Thoughtful Consideration To The Assesseee’S & The Revenue’S Respective Pleadings. The Revenue Could Hardly Dispute That Even Going By The Assessing Officer’S Assessment Discussion, The Assessee Had Admitted Total Sales In Jewellery Wholesale & Retail Business Activity, As The Case May Be, Amounting To Rs.8.69 Crores, Rs.9.16 Crores & Rs.14.99 Crores For F.Y. 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2017-18, Respectively. Necessary Inference Which Would Prima Facie Arise In The Assessee’S Favour In This Backdrop Is That The Impugned Cash Deposits Form Part Of His Jewellery Sales Only; Although Not Reconciled & Verified To The Entire Satisfaction Of Both The Learned Lower Authorities.

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 68Section 69A

DELHI BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2017-18 Sh. Manoj Kumar Verma, Vs. NFAC, Prop. MD Jewellers, 1103/2, Delhi Shastri Nagar, Meerut PAN: AAZPV9933A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by None Department by Ms. Ankush Kalra, Sr. DR Date of hearing