← 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

Shahnawaz Ahmed Chaudhary, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward 58(2), Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2773/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Naveen Chandraassessment Year: 2017-18 Shahnawaz Ahmed Chaudhary, Vs Ito, 162-J-Extension, Ward-58(2), Gali No.5, New Delhi Laxmi Nagar, Delhi – 110 092. Pan: Agmpc8667K (Appellants) (Respondents) Assessee By : Shri Sandeep Manaktala, Ca Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.09.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.10.2025 Order Per Anubhav Sharma, Jm: This Appeal Is Preferred By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2024 Of The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals), Nfac, Delhi (Hereinafter Referred As Ld. First Appellate Authority Or In Short Ld. ‘Faa’) In Appeal No.Cit (A), Delhi-19/10373/2019-20 Arising Out Of The Appeal Before It Against The Order Dated 07.12.2019 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred As ‘The Act’) By The Ito, Ward-58(2), Delhi (Hereinafter Referred To As The Ld. Ao). 2. On Hearing Both The Sides, We Find That Additions U/S 69C Of The Act Were Made On Account Of Unexplained Source Of Funds Utilized To Make Payment Of Credit Card Bills. However, The Assessee Was Unable To File Relevant Evidences To Corroborate Submissions Made Before The Ao That These Payments Were Made By The Customers/Clients Directly Towards His Credit Card Bills & The Ld. Counsel Byway Of Certain Evidences, Now Made Available In The Paper Book, Drew Our Attention To The Fact That The Sources Are Completely Disclosed & Well Explained. However, Neither The Same Were Filed Before The Ld.Cit(A) Nor Before Us As Additional Evidences. 3, Thus, For Ends Of Justice, The Assessee Is Given An Opportunity To File The Additional Evidences Before The Ld.Cit(A) Which Shall Be Considered For Admission In Accordance With The Law And, There Upon, The Appeal Be Decided Afresh By The Ld.Cit(A). Accordingly, The Appeal Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes.

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep Manaktala, CAFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Kulheri, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 69C

ORDER PER ANUBHAV SHARMA, JM: This appeal is preferred by the assessee against the order dated 31.03.2024 of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi (hereinafter referred as Ld. First Appellate Authority or in short Ld. ‘FAA’) in appeal No.CIT (A), Delhi-19/10373/2019-20 arising out of the appeal

Dwip Jain, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

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

ITA 392/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhdwip Jain, Vs. Ito 1(3)(1), 1928-29, New Pani Ki Tanki, Mathura. Mohalla Shekhon, Kosi Kalan, Mathura – 281 403 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Arrpj3455E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri M.M. Agarwal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 15.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 Order Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Am : 1. This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [For Short ‘Ld. Cit (A)] Dated 18.07.2025 For Assessment Year2016-17. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That 2 Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order & By Relying On Several Decisions, He Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Decided The Issue On Merit & Prayed That This Issue May Be Remitted Back To The Ld. Cit(A) With The Prayer To Give An Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee. He Submitted That There Are Reasons For Assessee For Not Appearing Before The First Appellate Authority.

For Appellant: Shri M.M. Agarwal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [for short ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated 18.07.2025 for Assessment Year2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought to our notice

Mohd Nadeem Qureshi, Jhansi vs. ITO, Ward (2)(3)(5), Jhansi

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

ITA 382/AGR/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhmohd. Nadeem Qureshi, Vs. Ito, Ward (2)(3)(5), Hn – 56/1, Out Sade, Orcha Gate, Jhansi. Jhansi – 284 002 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aarpq3548E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Prarthana Jalan, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 27.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At The Outset, It Was Submitted By The Ld. Ar For The Assessee That Assessing Officer Has Passed The Assessment Order Under Section 147 R.W.S. 144 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (For Short ‘The Act’) Without Giving Proper Opportunity To The Assessee & Ld. Cit(A) Affirmed The 2 Action Of The Ao. Accordingly, He Prayed That The Matter May Be Restored Back To The Assessing Officer To Decide Afresh. Ld. Dr Relied Upon The Order Of The Authorities Below. 3. Considered The Rival Submissions & Perused The Material On Record. Upon Careful Consideration, We Are Of The Considered View That In The Interest Of Justice, The Matter Requires Denovo Assessment. Therefore, We Remit Back The Issues To The File Of The Assessing Officer With The Direction To Decide The Same Afresh, After Giving Adequate Opportunity Of Being Heard To The Assessee, For Which Ld. Dr Has No Objection. Assessee Is Directed To Fully Cooperate With The Ao During The Proceedings. We Hold & Direct Accordingly. 4. In The Result, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Allowed For Statistical Purposes. Order Pronounced In The Open Court On This 28Th Day Of October, 2025. Sd/- (Sunil Kumar Singh)Dated: 28.10.2025 Ts

For Appellant: Ms. Prarthana Jalan, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Section 147

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 27.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2018-19. 2. At the outset, it was submitted

Ziaul Hasan, Uttar Pradesh vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 4(3)(1), Etah

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

ITA 381/AGR/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhziaul Hasan, Vs. Ito, Ward 4(3)(1), 20/4, Chatta Jalesar, Etah. S.O. Etah, Etah – 207 302 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Aaepq4523A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Tarun Gupta, Advocate Shri Gurfan Ahmad, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 30.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Submitted That There Was A Delay Of 1394 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee On The Ground Of An 2 Inordinate Delay Of 1394 Days & The Ld. Cit (A) Erroneously Presumed That The Order Was Served Electronically Despite The Fact That : (I) The Ruder Was Passed Manually & Does Not Bear Any Document Identification Number (Din); (Ii) The Assessment Proceedings Were Also Conducted Manually & Not Through The Income Tax E-Portal; (Iii) No Notices Were Served To The Assessee During The Course Of Assessment Proceedings; (Iv) The Order Was Not Served By Any Known Mode Of Communication Prescribed Under The Act.

For Appellant: Shri Tarun Gupta, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 30.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee

Talha Ahmad, Aligarh vs. DCIT, Circle-4(1)(1), Aligarh

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

ITA 376/AGR/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhtalha Ahmad, Vs. Dcit, Circle 4(1)(1), Ameen Pardhan Wali Gali, Agra. Doharra, Aligarh – 202 001 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Bhapa6050J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms. Meetakshi Rastogi, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman, Accountatn Member : 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 13.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order By Relying On Several Decisions & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. He Submitted That Ld. Cit (A) Has Not Decided

For Appellant: Ms. Meetakshi Rastogi, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTATN MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 13.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee

Jitendra Basrani, Agra vs. Income Tax Officer, Agra

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

ITA 374/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhjitendra Basrani, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(1)(1), A – 774, Kamla Nagar, Agra. Agra – 282 005 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Ajrpb9552A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Sursiya, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025 O R D E R Per S. Rifaur Rahman: 1. The Assessee Has Filed Appeal Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [“Ld. Cit(A)”, For Short] Dated 31.05.2025 For The Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar For The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That The Ld. Cit (A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Observing That Assessee Has Not Pursued The Appeal Despite Being Granted Several Opportunities & The Details Are Given In The First Appellate Order By Relying On Several Decisions & Dismissed The Appeal In Limine. He Submitted That Ld. Cit

For Appellant: Shri Alok Sursiya, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 31.05.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee