“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

Neetu Maheshwari, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer, Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 365/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

These appeals are 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 27.06.2025 for Assessment Years 2015-16 & 2016-17. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR for the assessee brought

Neetu Maheshwari, Agra vs. Jurisdictional Assessing Officer Ward 1(1)(2), Agra

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 364/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shris.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

Upendra Singh Gour, Rajghat Colony, Lalitpur vs. Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal), Income Tax Department

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

ITA 353/AGR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhupendra Singh Gour, Vs. Ito, Ward 2(3)(4), A 4/26, Rajghat Colony, Lalitpur – 284 403 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Bgjpg3206J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None 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 24.07.2024 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. We Are Proceeding To Decide The Appeal With The Assistance Of The Ld. Dr Of The Revenue. 3. At The Time Of Hearing, It Was Observed That There Was A Delay Of 113 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Ld. Cit (A) & The Ld. Cit (A) Dismissed

For Appellant: NoneFor 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 24.07.2024 for the Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We are proceeding

Anubhav Kumar, Aligarh vs. Additional/ Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 351/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeals against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT(A)”, for short] dated 26.05.2025 for the Assessment Years 2013-14 & 2014-15. 2. None appeared on behalf of the assessee

Anubhav Kumar, Aligarh vs. Additional/Joint/Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Aligarh

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

ITA 350/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 147

K P Enterprises, Etawah vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Firozabad

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

ITA 341/AGR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRIS.RIFAUR RAHMAN (Accountant Member), SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Malhotra, CAFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 145(3)Section 154Section 271(1)(c)

S.RIFAUR RAHMAN,AM: 1. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income-tax Appeals/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. CIT (A)] dated10.06.2025 for Assessment Year2014-15 affirming the penalty order dated 15.02.2022 passed under section

Income Tax Officer, Sanjay Place Agra vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Noida

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

ITA 290/AGR/2025[2016]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhincome Tax Officer, Vs. Gunjan Gupta Batra, Ward 2 (1), Agra. A - 45, Sector 26, Noida – 201 301 (Uttar Pradesh). (Pan : Abupg5419J) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Somil Agarwal, Advocate Ms. Shilpa Gupta, Ca Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2025 Date Of Order : 28.10.2025

For Appellant: Shri Somil Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 68

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT (A)”, for short] dated 05.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2016-17. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its original ... entire closing capital declared by the assessee as undisclosed income u/s 68 of the Act. 3. Aggrieved assessee preferred an appeal before the ld. NFAC, Delhi and filed a detailed submissions which is reproduced at pages 2 to 5 of the appellate order. After considering the detailed submissions

Lions Club Guna City Parmarthik Niyas, Guna vs. Income Tax Officer (Exemption), Gwalior

ITA 274/AGR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhassessment Year: 2017-18

Section 11Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154Section 154(1)(b)Section 250

been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 18.03.2025 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2016-17/10297334 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017-18, wherein learned CIT(Appeals

Akash Goyal, Mathura vs. Income Tax Officer 1(3)(1), Mathura

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed as indicated above

ITA 196/AGR/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

For Appellant: Shri Anurag Sinha, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Shalenndra Shrivastava, Sr. DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69A

RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : 1. The assessee has filed appeal against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [“Ld. CIT (A)”, for short] dated 17.03.2025 for the Assessment Year 2021-22. 2. Brief facts of the case are, assessee filed its return ... addition u/s 69A of the Act to the extent of Rs.81,36,325/-. Aggrieved with the above order, assessee preferred an appeal before the NFAC, Delhi and explained the total credits in his bank account which included cash deposit of Rs.29,05,000/-. The assessee has submitted detailed explanation

Chelaram Balwani, Rathi Building Ke Pass vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 194/AGR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.Rifaur Rahman & Shri Sunil Kumar Singhshri Chelaram Balwani, Vs. Ito, Ward 1 (3), Rathi Building Ke Pass, Gwalior. Ward No.8, Ajay Pal Ki Gali, Datia, Gwalior – 475 661 (Madhya Pradesh). (Pan : Aynpb7221P) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Alok Dhingra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.10.2025 Date Of Order : 16.10.2025 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 10.01.2024 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Brought To Our Notice That There Is A Delay Of 395 Days In Filing The Appeal Before The Tribunal On The Ground That The Order Was Communicated Via Portal & The Registered Mail Id I.E. 71Nkkhare@Gmail.Com On The Income Tax Portal Does Not Belong To The Assessee, It Might Have Been Of Erstwhile Consultant Who

For Appellant: Shri Alok Dhingra, AdvocateFor 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 10.01.2024 for the Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. At the time of hearing, ld. AR of the assessee

Marshal Security Services, Agra vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Agra

In the result, this appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 131/AGR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Agra28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: : Shri M. Balaganesh & Shri Sunil Kumar Singh

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

assessee against the impugned order dated 15.01.2025 passed in Appeal No. ClT(Appeals) 2, Agra/10445/2018-19 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2016-17, wherein learned CIT(Appeals

Manto Tingkhaham, Namsangmukh vs. Office of the ITO, Digboi

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 161/GTY/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was disposed of by order dated 21/03/2025 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Vide DIN & Order No :ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1074803037(1).

Section 10(26)Section 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 31.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1. In this case, there is a delay of 18 days which has been requested to be condoned as under: “AFIDAVIT

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2, Guwahati vs. The Assam Cooerative Apex Bank Limited, Guwahati

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 160/GTY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (Itat) Was On Or Before 31/05/2025. However, The Appeal Was Filed Before The Hon'Ble Itat, Guwahati, On 18/06/2025, Resulting A Delay Of 18 Days Due To The Following Reasons. Exceptional Workload Due To Time-Barring Assessments & Initial Budget Collection Monitoring (March 2025): The Period Immediately Preceding The Appeal

Section 250Section 40

order under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre(NFAC), Delhi was communicated on 19/03/202S. Consequently, the due date for filing an appeal before the Hon'ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) was on or before ... Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 19.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2.1 In this case, the Ld. CIT(A) is seen to have given relief on an issue involving a provision

Ranee Narah, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir -2 Guwahati, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 147/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: The Ld. Cit(A) On The Basis Of Following Findings:

Section 23(4)Section 250Section 68Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 17.01.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1. In this case, the Ld. AO made two additions on account of deemed house property income

Ranabir Paul, Guwahati vs. ACIT Cir-2, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 120/GTY/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: SHRI MANOMOHAN DAS, JUDICIAL MEMBER SHRI SANJAY AWASTHI (Accountant Member)

Section 250

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 30.03.2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1. In this case, right at outset, the Ld. AR pointed out that the assessee did not get sufficient opportunity

Mandakini Dkhar, Lumshnong vs. ACIT, Circle - 2, Guwahati

Appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 19/GTY/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A), where also she could not succeed. The Ld. CIT(A) mainly relied on the findings of the Ld. AO. It is also seen from para 18 at page 11 of the impugned order that the Ld. CIT(A) was considerably persuaded by the fact that the notice issued by the Ld. AO for eliciting response from the assessee, were not adequately responded to. It is also seen from the impugned order that attempts to verify the nature and extent of business from the VAT returns pertaining to the state of Megha

Section 10(26)Section 115BSection 250Section 69A

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 30.11.2023, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 1.1 In this case, the main point of dispute revolves around cash deposit

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward -1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 127/GTY/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”), dated 09.04.2022, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)] pertains to Assessment Year 2016-17. On the other hand, ITA No. 127/Gty/2023 pertaining to AY 2017-18 arises from order ... dated 09.04.2022, passed u/s 250 of the Act by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. I.T.A. Nos. 126 & 127/GTY/2025 Deepa Jhunjhunwala 1.2 These are two appeals pertaining to the same assessee and challenge the action of Ld. AO-CPC, who has processed these two cases

Deepa Jhunjhunwala, Shillong vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1, Shillong

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands allowed

ITA 126/GTY/2023[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: the Ld. CIT(A) and thereafter aggrieved the assessee has approached the ITAT with the following grounds:

Section 139(4)Section 139(9)Section 143(1)Section 250Section 80Section 80ASection 80I

Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar, Panaji vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Panaji

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 313/PAN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Oct 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshali

For Appellant: Mr Rahul Sarda [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr Renga Rajan [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 253(1)Section 263Section 50C

whereby total income of the assessee assessed at ₹9,81,35,791/-. 4. Aggrieved by aforestated assessment the assessee filed an appeal before Ld. NFAC on 23/04/2025, which came to be dismissed in absence of documentary evidence. Aggrieved thereby the assessee came in present appeal on following grounds; Not dealing ... with the submissions of the Appellant 1. The NFAC erred in not dealing with the submissions of the Appellant and erred in observing that the Appellant "only furnished letter/ application with subject request for treating the applicant as not ITAT-Panaji Page 3 of 13 Sonali Mahendra Naik Gaunekar

Manish Punjabhai Odedra, Porbandar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2(4), Porbandar, Gujarat

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

ITA 187/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot28 Oct 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha

For Appellant: Shri Sagar Shah, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 69A

ITA No. 187/Rjt/2025-Manish P, Odedara > HTH TATA SR, WarHle HAAN, WetHle| IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,RAJKOT BENCH, RAJKOT