“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

ITO., Ward-6(1), Hyderabad vs. Swathi Communications, Hyderabad

ITA 961/HYD/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Us:

Section 133(6)Section 147Section 148Section 148A

present appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 28.03.2025, 2 Swathi Communications which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer under Section 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Income ... notice under Section 148 of the Act, dated 27.03.2023, was issued by the J.A.O., i.e., JCIT, Ward - 6, Hyderabad, and not by the A.O., NFAC, New Delhi, as required by the mandate of the provisions of Section 151A of the Act, therefore, in the absence of valid assumption of jurisdiction

Mohammed Gouse Moinuddin, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-14(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 900/HYD/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Sri R. Mohan KumarFor Respondent: Sri Madan Mohan Meena,Sr. AR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 69A

above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the Order dated 17.01.2025 of the learned CIT(A)- National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short “NFAC], Delhi, relating to the assessment year 2014-2015. 2 ITA.No.900/Hyd./2025 2. At the outset, there is a delay of 52 days in filing

Himabindu, Bangalore vs. ITO., Ward-1, Chittoor

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

ITA 799/HYD/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama Rao, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

filed by Ms. Himabindu (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 18.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2017-18. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal : ITA No.799/Hyd/2025

Late Nimmatoori Raja Babu, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle 2(4), Hyderabad

ITA 594/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G & Shri Ravish Sood

For Respondent: Sri Posu Babu Alli, Sr. AR

Section 143(3)Section 269Section 271Section 271DSection 271D(2)Section 273B

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD “A” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI MANJUNATHA G, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI RAVISH SOOD

Anitha Myadam, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1), Hyderabad

ITA 479/HYD/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 144BSection 147Section 148

appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [“CIT(A)”] National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC”), Delhi dated 17.01.2025, which in turn arises from the order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s. 144 read with section 144B of the Income

Agras Residency Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1159/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Madhusudan Sawdia

For Appellant: Shri P. Vinod, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. Sachin Kumar, SR-DR

Section 147Section 148Section 68

Agras Residency Pvt. Ltd. (“the assessee”), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi (“Ld. CIT(A)”), dated 10.03.2025 for the A.Y. 2013-14. ITA No.1159/Hyd/2025 2 2. At the outset, it is noticed that there

Arcot Afsar Begum, Tadipatri vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anantapur

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

ITA 1134/HYD/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: The Tribunal Within The Prescribed Period. It Was Contended That The Delay Is Neither Willful Nor Deliberate But Has Occurred On Account Of Genuine & Bona Fide Reasons. Accordingly, He Prayed For Condonation Of The Delay In The Interest Of Substantial Justice. 3. Per Contra, The Learned Departmental Representative (“Ld. Dr") Did Not Raise Any Serious Objection To The Prayer Of The Assessee. 4. We Have Carefully Considered The Submissions Of Both Sides & Perused The Condonation Petition Along With The Affidavit Placed On Record. On Perusal Of The Same, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Has Shown A Reasonable & Bona Fide Cause For The Delay In Filing The Appeal. It Is Well Settled That When Substantial Justice & Technical Considerations Are Pitted Against Each Other, The Cause Of Substantial Justice Deserves To Be Preferred. In View Of The Above Facts & Circumstances & There Being No Serious Objection From The Revenue, We Condone The Delay Of 95 Days In Filing Of The Appeal. Accordingly, The Appeal Is Admitted For Adjudication On Merits. 5. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :

Section 115BSection 147Section 44ASection 69A

Arcot Afsar Begum ("the assessee"), feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi

Income Tax Officer, Ward 3(1), Hyderabad vs. Stypack Private Limited, Hyderabad

In the result, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed, while the cross-objection of the assessee company is allowed in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 997/HYD/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Us:

Section 132Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 68

present appeal filed by the revenue is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, dated 07.08.2024, which in turn arises from the order passed by the Assessing Officer (for short, “A.O.”) under Section 147 r.w.s.144B of the Income

Nurul Islam Mullick, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 61(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 799/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Nurul Islam Mullick, Bhupatipur, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 61 Munshirhat, Jagatballavpur, (1), Kolkata Howrah-711410 Pan/Gir No. Adkpm 8272 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraz D. Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11/09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09/2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Miraz D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

present appeal is directed at the instance of assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (A), NFAC, Delhi dated 14.12.2023 in Appeal No. CIT(A), Kolkata-19/10058/2019-20 passed for Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The appeal is time barred by 412 days. The assessee has filed ... Appellant : Nurul Islam Mullick, Bhupatipur, Munshirhat, Jagatballavpur, Howrah-711410 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 61 (1), Kolkata 3. The ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

DCIT, Circle-7(1), Kolkata vs. Bothra Shipping Services Private Limited, Kolkata

In the result, the ground of appeal no

ITA 780/KOL/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2020-21 Dcit, Circle-7(1), Kolkata……………………………….……….……Appellant Vs. Bothra Shipping Services Pvt. Ltd ………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Sagar Estate, 2Nd Floor, Room No.10, Kol - 700001. [Pan: Aaecb6711E] Appearances By: Shri Raja Senguptda, Cit-Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Ankit Daga, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : September 04, 2025 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : September 12, 2025 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey:

Section 143(2)Section 801A(4)(c)Section 80I

आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, कोलकाता पीठ, कोलकाता IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA Before Shri Rajesh

Chaktentul Skus Ltd., Durgapur vs. ITO, Ward 1(1), Durgapur

ITA 1464/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: 28-02-2024 & In The Process There Is Delay Of 403 Days In Filing The Instant Appeal. The Main Reason Is The Appellant Was Suffering From Prolonged Illness & Was Under Medical Supervision. The Appellant Is Attaching A Copy Of Medical Certificate Issued By The Doctor In This Respect. 2. That The Limitation Period Prescribed In Income Tax Act, 1961 For Filing The Appeal Before This Appellate Tribunal Against The Order Of The Income Tax Officer Is 60 Days From The Date Of The Receipt Of The Impugned Order.

Section 250Section 270ASection 271ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

Sujoy Krishna Jana, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1236/KOL/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: Both these appeals filed by the assessee are against the separate orders of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. 'CIT(A)'] passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred ... Avenue, 3rd Floor,, Kolkata, West Bengal, 700072. 2. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Basudevpur, Talpukur, Haldia, West Bengal, 721602. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Kolkata Benches, Kolkata. 6. Guard File. //// By order

Sujoy Krishna Jana, Kolkata vs. DCIT/ACIT, Circle 27(1), Haldia

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1235/KOL/2025[2018-2019]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2018-2019

Bench: Shri George Mathan & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 143(1)Section 143(1)(a)Section 250

Ansar Rahaman, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

ITA 1190/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: SHRI RAJESH KUMAR (Accountant Member)

Section 147Section 148Section 151Section 250

passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereafter “the Act”) by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereafter “the Ld. CIT(A)]. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “1. FOR THAT the Id. Commissioner of Income ... Appeals)-NFAC. failed to appreciate that none of the conditions precedent existed and/or have been complied with and/or fulfilled by the Ld. Income Tax Officer. Ward 49(1), Kolkata for his alleged assumption of jurisdiction u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 in the facts and circumstances

Jkc Realty Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 9(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1122/KOL/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: The Tribunal.

For Appellant: JKC Realty Private Limited, 10AFor Respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 9 (1)

Section 148Section 68

Limited, 10A, Sikdar Para Street, Burra Bazar, Kolkata-700007 2. The respondent: Income Tax Officer, Ward 9 (1), Kolkata 3. The ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

Ishvatham, Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward - 28(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1120/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2013-14 Ishvatham, 21A, Ground Floor, Vs Ito, Ward 28(1), Kolkata Charu Chandra Avenue, Tollygunge, West Bengal Pan/Gir No.Aacfi 6997 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar Revenue By : Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 11 /09/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 12/09 /2025

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Naskar, Sr DR

appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NAFC), New Delhi NFAC), Delhi dated 24.3.2025 in Appeal No.CIT(A),Kolkata-8/10264/2015-16 passed for Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. In Ground Nos.1 to 5 of appeal, the assessee ... Appellant : Ishvatham, 21A, Ground floor, Charu Chandra Avenue, Tollygunge, West Bengal 2. The respondent: ITO, Ward 28(1), Kolkata 3. The CIT(A)-,NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT, Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

Anupam Saha, North Twenty Four Pgs vs. ITO, Ward 50(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 102/KOL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: appeal order was never served upon him. It is stated that the user ID and password to get access of the e-filing portal was with the Authorised representative and said A.R. did not inform the assessee about the passing of the appellate order. It was also submitted that during that period, due to his serious illness, he was under treatment in Vellore and could not check up the tax matter with the A.R. It was in this backdrop that the appeal could not be filed within the stipulated period. It

For Appellant: Anupam Saha, Habra 1, Vilalge-For Respondent: Income Tax Offi

Section 142(1)Section 44ASection 69C

Vilalge- Sadpur, PO: Maslandapur, Barasat, 24, Pgs North, West Bengal 2. The Respondent: Income Tax Officer-50(2), Kolkata 3. The ld CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. Pr.CIT- Kolkata 5. DR, ITAT, Kolkata 6. Guard file. //// By order Asst

M/S Vibhuti Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-11(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 689/KOL/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Sept 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: the Assessing Officer by stating that the assessee received Rs.10,00,000/- from M/s Gajgamini Commodities on account of sale of shares. However, the Assessing Officer without doing any verification on the evidences furnished by the assessee which comprises of ledger account, bank statement, ITR, Balance Sheet etc. of Gajgamini Commodities Pvt. Ltd. The ld AO came to the conclusion that the assessee has not prove the genuineness of the transaction and consequently added amount to the income

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250

Veeraswamy Jotheeswaran, Tiruvallur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Tiruvallur

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

ITA 1756/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: HeardITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri George George K

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Krishnan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Y. Sudarshan, JCIT

Section 10(37)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 56(2)(vii)

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 16.04.2025 passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called ‘the Act’). The relevant Assessment Year is 2018-19. :- 2 -: 2. Brief facts

Indian Co-Operative Network for Women Limited, Chennai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 1(2), Nungambakkam

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

ITA 1636/CHNY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 Sept 2025AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri S S Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.:1633 To 1636/Chny/2025 धनिाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Indian Co-Operative Network For Ito, Women Limited Vs. Non Corporate Ward -1(2), No. 55, Bheemasena Garden Road, Chennai. Chennai – 600 004. Tamil Nadu. [Pan:Aaaai-4488-B] (अपीलाथी/Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/Respondent) अपीलाथी की ओर से/Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/Respondent By : Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. Cit.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. N. Rajakumar, Addl. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 80P(2)(a)

BENCH : These four appeals by the assessee are filed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax, Appeal, NFAC, Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 vide order dated 12.06.2024 and for the assessment year 2018-19 vide order dated 28.08.2024. Since facts are identical ... Aggrieved by the order of the AO, the assessee preferred separate appeals for all the four A.Ys. before the ld.CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi. 8. On perusal of the orders of the ld.CIT(A), we note that the assessee had not participated in the appellate proceedings inspite of providing various opportunities