“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

Thermo Fisher Scienftific India P. Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT 15(3)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal by the assessee for the assessment year 2014-

ITA 1236/MUM/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadavshri Sandeep Singh Karhail

For Appellant: Shri Dhanesh Bafna, Shri Anmol MahajanFor Respondent: Shri Pravin Salunkhe, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C(13)Section 32(1)

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “H” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL

Neetu Gupta, Punjab vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Kapurthala, Punjab

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 4496/DEL/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

appeal arises from order dated 02.06.2025, passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter as “the Act”) by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. In this case, the Ld. AO has levied a penalty u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act to the extent of Rs.1

Damanjeet Singh Oberoi, Raipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 317/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Damanjeet Singh Oberoi Dcit, Circle 1(1), Raipur C/O Oberoi Tour & Travels, Shop No.1, Wali Mohd. Vs. Building, Kk Road, Moudhapara, Raipur – 492001 Pan: Aaepo3096L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 133ASection 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69A

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 25.04.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. The assessee in the grounds of appeal has challenged the order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC upholding the re-assessment ... 144B of the Act wherein he made addition of Rs.1,00,00,000/- u/s 69A of the Act. 5. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee challenged the validity of re- assessment proceedings and the addition on merit. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal. 6. Aggrieved

Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur vs. Kanha Grain Process, Raipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 260/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2015-16 Ito, Ward 1(2), Raipur Kanha Grain Process Vs. Station Road, Tilda Neora, Raipur – 493114 Pan: Aaifk3222G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 69C

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order dated 11.02.2025 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2015-16. 2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is a partnership firm and engaged in the business of rice ... Rs.1,19,00,000/- as unexplained expenditure u/s 69C of the Act on account of bogus purchases. 4. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC held that the Additional Solicitor

Kamlesh Kukreja, Raipur vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Raipur

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

ITA 119/RPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryassessment Year : 2016-17 Kamlesh Kukreja Ito, Ward-1(1), Raipur Prop. Anmol Industries, Vs. Surajpura Road, Bhatapara, Raipur – 493118 Ahvpk6618C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal Department By : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 O R D E R Per R.K. Panda, Vp:

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar AgrawalFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 148Section 69C

PANDA, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.07.2024 of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, Delhi relating to assessment year 2016-17. 2. There is a delay of 156 days in filing of this appeal before the Tribunal for which the assessee has filed ... accommodation entries. The Assessing Officer accordingly determined the total income of the assessee at Rs.2,67,80,672/-. 10. Before the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, apart from challenging the addition on merit, challenged the validity of re-assessment proceedings. However, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC was not satisfied with

R G Lifter, Surat vs. ITO, Ward- 2(3)(4), Surat

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 590/SRT/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri Esmayeel Saherwala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 154Section 199Section 234A

Assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals), [hereinafter referred to as ‘CIT(A)’], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi dated 25/03/2025 for Assessment Year (AY) 2019-20. 2. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: a) That ... NFAC, DELHI has erred in law and on facts in upholding the order of the Ld. ADIT, CPC, which denied the credit of Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) amounting to Rs. 6,14,931/- despite the same being duly reflected in the appellant's Form No. 26AS and claimed

Rameshbhai Makanbhai Bhakta, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Bardoli

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

ITA 413/SRT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Gargshri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Arjav Vidani, ARFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : This appeal is field by the assessee against the order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi dated 06.02.2025 for the Assessment Year 2017-18 in the proceeding u/s.143(3) of the Income Tax Act. 2. The brief facts of the case

Shyamlal Lalchand Singh, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 1(2)(6), Surat

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

ITA 209/SRT/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Surat01 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Bijayananda Pruseth

For Appellant: Shri P M Jagasheth, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 271ASection 37(1)Section 68

Ashokkumar Prahladbai Patel, India vs. DCIT, Circle 2(1)(1), India

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

ITA 1300/AHD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaassessment Year: 2016-17

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 69A

NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (in short “the CIT(A)”) dated 21.04.2025 for the Assessment Year (A.Y.) 2016-17 in the proceeding under Section 143(3)/147 of the Income

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Circle)-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1563/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

Order forwarded to : अपीलाथ" / The Appellant 1. 2. ""थ" / The Respondent. 3. संबंिधत आयकर आयु& / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु& अपील ( ) / The CIT(A)- (NFAC), Delhi िवभागीय "ितिनिध आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण अहमदाबाद/DR,ITAT, Ahmedabad. 5. , , गाड" फाईल / 6. Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, स"ािपत "ित //// सहायक पंजीकार (Asstt

Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1562/AHD/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1451/AHD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

DCIT, Central Circle-1(4), Ahmedabad vs. Hindva Builders, Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Revenue are hereby dismissed

ITA 1450/AHD/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Hemani, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Sl.Nos.1 & 2 - Shri R.P. Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 250Section 3(1)

Harshit Indravadanbhai Talati, Vadodara vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

ITA 1301/AHD/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 Jan 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinhaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1301/Ahd/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12) बनाम/ Harshit Indravadan Acit Talati Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara Vs. 1, Kotyark Society, B/H. Zaver Nagar Bus Stop, Waghodia Road, Baroda, Gujarat - 390019 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Abipt6038Q (Appellant) .. (Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate & Ms. Urvashi Sodhan, Ar ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 02/12/2025 01/01/2026 Date Of Pronouncement

For Appellant: Shri S N Soparkar, Sr. Advocate &For Respondent: Shri Rameshwar P Meena, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 68Section 69C

SHRI NARENDRA PRASAD SINHA, AM: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, (in short ‘the CIT(A)’), dated 10.05.2024 for the Assessment Year 2011-12 in the proceedings under Section 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income ... assessment u/s 148 is bad in law as same has been done for verification purpose only for making fishing and roving inquiries. 3. Ld. NFAC erred in law and on facts in confirming addition of Rs. 1,04,25,763/-by treating long term capital gain as unexplained credit

Income Tax Officer (Exemptions) Ward, Kolhapur vs. The New Miraj Education Society, Miraj, Dist. Sangli

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is dismissed

ITA 928/PUN/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri C.H. Naniwadekar, CAFor Respondent: Shri Udaya Bhaskar Jakke, CIT

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)

Tribunal, in the above referred case, are as under:- “20. So far as the grievance of the Revenue that the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC has erred in allowing the appeal of the assessee by holding that filing of audit report in the prescribed form before completion of the assessment proceedings ... sufficient compliance under the provisions of the Act is concerned, we find the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in assessee‟s own case for assessment year 2014-15. We find the Hon‟ble Gujarat High Court

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2550/PUN/2025[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2016-2017

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2548 & 2550/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 & 2016-17 Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Pne-C-(25)(1), Pvt. Ltd. 288, Baliram Peth, Circle-1, Jalgaon Jalgaon-425001, Maharashtra Vs. Pan : Aadcr 7439 N अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, Ca Department By : : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 01-01-2026 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Separate Order(S) Both Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :-

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT

Section 145ASection 69

appeals filed by the assessee is directed against the separate order(s) both dated 14.08.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2015-16 and 2016-17. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal ... consultant was also arrested. Thereafter, daughter of Mr. Bagrecha took charge of the tax matters and appeals were filed before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC. He admitted that several notices were issued by the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC, out of which the assessee could submit its reply only

Raisoni Bagrecha Diamonds Private Limited, Jalgaon vs. Pne-C-(25)(1), Circle 1, Jalgaon

In the result, the appeals of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2548/PUN/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

For Appellant: Shri Sanjay T. Tupe, CAFor Respondent: : Smt. Indira R. Adakil –Addl. CIT

Section 145ASection 69

Pravin Shriram Tapare, Aurangabad vs. ITO 1(5) Aurangabad, Aurangabad

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

ITA 2186/PUN/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Girish Ladda (virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 269SSection 271D

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE “B” BENCH : PUNE BEFORE SHRI RAMA KANTA PANDA, VICE-PRESIDENT & Ms. ASTHA CHANDRA

Simran Motors Pvt.Ltd, Panvel vs. DCIT Circle, Panvel

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

ITA 1071/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rama Kanta Panda, Vice- & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Bhadresh Doshi (virtual)For Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh, JCIT

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 35Section 35(1)(ii)

Date of Pronouncement : 01.01.2026 ORDER PER : ASTHA CHANDRA, JM This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] dated 17/02/2025 pertaining to the Assessment Year (“AY”) 2013-14. 2. Briefly stated, the facts ... Genetics and Population Health, Kolkata including the receipt of notice/show-cause notice post the date of assessment order. We, however, observe that Ld.CIT(A)/ NFAC failed to consider the submissions of the assessee and dismissed the appeal of the assessee for the reasons already reproduced in preceding paragraph. Before

G.S. Procon Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 509/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jan 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: SHRI GEORGE MATHAN (Judicial Member), SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

For Respondent: Shri Bonnie Deb Barma, Sr. DR

Section 56(2)(vii)

Bench : This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.01.2024 for the assessment year 2015-2016. 2. The appeal of the assessee is filed belatedly by 345 days. In this regard, the Managing Director