← 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

R R Constructions, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2609/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.2609/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2017-18 R R Constructions, V The Income Tax 25, Atur Terracces, 896, Nana S Officer, Peth, Pune – 411002. Pmt Building, Pune. Pan: Aacar2725E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None. Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Dr Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac], Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For The A.Y.2017-18 Dated 14.08.2025 Emanating From The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 143(3) Of The Act, Dated 02.12.2019. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1) The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax Appeals Nfac, Erred In Passing An Order Confirming The Addition Made Under Section 68 When

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2017-18 dated 14.08.2025 emanating from the Assessment Order passed under section ... dated 02.12.2019. The Assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : “1) The learned commissioner of Income Tax Appeals NFAC, erred in passing an order confirming the addition made under section 68 when ITA No.2609/PUN/2025 [A] the detailed submission was made and a request for personal hearing through VC mode

Pradeep Janardhan Sakhare, Sambhajinagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(A), Aurangabad

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

ITA 2509/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2509/Pun/2025 धििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 Pradeep Janardhan Sakhare, Ito, Ward – 1(1), Ashay Regency, Flat No. 9, Aurangabad New Vishal Nagar, Chh. Sambhajinagar, Vs. Maharashtra-431001 Pan : Bobps8283M अपीलार्थी / Appellant प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Assessee By : Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual) Department By : Smt. Indira R. Adakil Date Of Hearing : 04-12-2025 Date Of 18-12-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 26.09.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac”] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly Stated The Facts Are That The Assessee Is An Individual. For Ay 2018-19, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.3,17,830/-. Based On The Information Received From The Insight Portal Under „High Risk Criu/Vru Information‟, It Was Found That The Assessee Has Done Transaction In Crypto Currency Of Rs.38,54,500/-, The Source Of Which Requires Verification & Also There Were Unexplained Credit Entries Aggregating To Rs.40,44,044/-. As The Assessee Failed To Disclose The Above Transaction In The Itr Filed For The Ay 2018-19, The Ld. Assessing Officer (“Ao”) Had Reason To Believe That The Above Income In Ay 2018-19 Has Escaped Assessment. Accordingly, The Case Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 147 By Issue Of Notice U/S 148 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (The “Act”) Dated 07.04.2022. In Response Thereto, The Assessee Filed His Return Of Income On 09.06.2023. Statutory Notice(S) U/S 142(1) & 144 Were Then Issued To The Assessee. As The Assessee Failed To File Any Compliance

For Appellant: Shri Shubham N. Rathi (Virtual)For Respondent: Smt. Indira R. Adakil
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 151Section 151ASection 69ASection 69B

ASTHA CHANDRA, JM : The appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 26.09.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC”] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19. 2. Briefly stated the facts are that the assessee is an individual ... final opportunity of being heard to the assessee. Needless to say, the assessee shall appear and make submissions before the Ld. CIT(A)/ NFAC on the appointed date without seeking any adjournment under any pretext, unless required for the sufficient cause, failing which the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC shall

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, Man, Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1801/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1800 & 1801/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Satara Circle, Satara अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Department By : Date Of Hearing : Date Of Pronouncement : Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, Vs. At Post-Dahiwadi, Tal.-Man Satara, Satara-415508 Pan: Aaoas0059G प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Shri R.C. Doshi Shri S. Sadananda Singh 11-11-2025 18-12-2025 आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 19.05.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the two separate orders both dated 19.05.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since the issue(s) involved are identical, these were heard together

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Satara Circle, Satara vs. Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, Tal. Man Satara

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue in ITA No

ITA 1800/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos.1800 & 1801/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Years : 2018-19 & 2020-21 Dy. Cit, Satara Circle, Satara Vs. Shri Siddhanath Nagari Sahakari Patsanstha Marya Dahiwadi, At Post-Dahiwadi, Tal.-Man Satara, Satara-415508 Pan: Aaoas0059G अपीलार्थी / Appellant Assessee By : Shri R.C. Doshi Department By : Shri S. Sadananda Singh Date Of Hearing : 11-11-2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 18-12-2025 प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent आदेश / Order Per Astha Chandra, Jm : These Two Appeals Filed By The Revenue Are Directed Against The Two Separate Orders Both Dated 19.05.2025 Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi [“Cit(A)/Nfac"] Pertaining To Assessment Year (“Ay”) 2018-19 & 2020-21. Since The Issue(S) Involved Are Identical, These Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Of By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri R.C. DoshiFor Respondent: Shri S. Sadananda Singh
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 2(19)Section 80PSection 80P(2)(a)

appeals filed by the Revenue are directed against the two separate orders both dated 19.05.2025 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)/NFAC"] pertaining to Assessment Year (“AY”) 2018-19 and 2020-21. Since the issue(s) involved are identical, these were heard together

Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, Satara vs. ITO WD No - 04, Satara

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

ITA 1692/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No.1692/Pun/2025 निर्धारण वषा / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Prasanna Shrikant Patankar, V The Income Tax Officer, No.35, Raviwar Peth, Azad S Ward-4, Satara. Chowk, Karad, Satara – 415110. Maharashtra. Pan: Alypp1014A Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Harshit Bari – Addl.Cit(Virtual) Date Of Hearing 16/12/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/12/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 For A.Y.2015-16 Dated 29.05.2025 Emanating From Penalty Order U/S.271(1)(C) Dated 19.09.2023. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. That, On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A), Nfac In Dismissing The Appeal Filed By The Appellant Is Arbitrary, Erroneous, Contrary To Law & Is Opposed To The Principles Of Natural Justice, Equity & Fair Play

Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[NFAC] passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for A.Y.2015-16 dated 29.05.2025 emanating from penalty order u/s.271(1)(c) dated 19.09.2023. The Assessee ... raised the following grounds of appeal : “1. That, on the facts and circumstances of the case, the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC in dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant is arbitrary, erroneous, contrary to law and is opposed to the principles of natural justice, equity and fair

Badma Baribooranam, Tuticorin vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tuticorin

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

ITA 3498/CHNY/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Dec 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Ms. S. Padmavathyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3498/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2015-16 Badma Baribooranam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 26, Vannar 1St Street, Ward 1, Tuticorin 628 003. Tuticorin. [Pan: Bcypp9880L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri P.M. Kathir, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Latchana, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.12.2025 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.12.2025 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.10.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. In Ground No. 2.3, The Assessee Challenged That The Reopening Itself Is Bad In Law As The Same Was Jurisdictionally Invalid, The Ld. Cit(A) Erred In Failing To Annul The Reopening & The Subsequent Order Of Reassessment.

For Appellant: Shri P.M. Kathir, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Latchana, JCIT
Section 147Section 148Section 148A

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 08.10.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2015-16. 2. In ground No. 2.3, the assessee challenged that the reopening itself ... DCIT in W.P. No. 22402 of 2024 & WMP No. 13336 of 2023 dated 24.06.2025 and prayed to quash the assessment order passed by the NFAC without issuing notice under section 148A(d) of the Act. 5. The ld. DR Ms. Latchana, JCIT supported the order passed the Assessing Officer