← 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

Income Tax Officer, Parwanoo vs. Ajay Kadian, Kala Amb (Sirmour)

In the result, the appeal of the revenue stand dismissed

ITA 660/CHANDI/2024[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Feb 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Rajpal Yadav & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.660/Chandi/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2021-22) Ito Shri Ajay Kadian बनाम/ Sco 35F, Hpmc Road Block-O, Ras Industries, Trilokpur Road Vs. Sector-2, Parwanoo (H.P.) - 173220 Kala, Amb. Sirmour (H.P.) 173030 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Bndpk-3045-A (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : अपीलाथ"कीओरसे/ Appellant By : Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. Ar ""थ"कीओरसे/Respondent By : Sh. Manav Bansal (Cit) - Ld. Dr सुनवाईकीतारीख/Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 घोषणाकीतारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश / O R D E R Manoj Kumar Aggarwal () 1. Aforesaid Appeal By Revenue For Assessment Year (Ay) 2021-22 Arises Out Of An Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Nfac [Cit(A)] Dated 29-03-2024 In The Matter Of An Assessment Framed By Ld. Assessing Officer [Ao] U/S 143(3) Of The Act On 26-12-2022. From Grounds Of Appeal, It Is Quite Evident That The Issues That Fall For Our Consideration Are – (I) Addition On Account Of Alleged Bogus Purchase; & (Ii) Addition Of Cash Deposit & Time

For Appellant: Sh. Harry Rikhy (Advocate) – Ld. ARFor Respondent: Sh. Manav Bansal (CIT) - Ld. DR
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)

Member) 1. Aforesaid appeal by revenue for Assessment Year (AY) 2021-22 arises out of an order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC [CIT(A)] dated 29-03-2024 in the matter of an assessment framed by Ld. Assessing Officer

Jks Abasan LLP, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle 1(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 594/KOL/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2017-18 Jks Abasan Llp…………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant P-4, Black Lanen, Kol-700012. [Pan: Aalfj9634N] Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S. Datta, Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 29, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 10.03.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2017–18. 2. At The Very Outset, The Assessee Has Challenged By Taking Legal Ground That Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Dated 21.08.2018 Is Not In Conformity With The Instruction Issued By Cbdt Instruction No.1/2011 Dated 31.01.2011 & Since The Notice Issued U/S 143(2) Is Defective, The Assessment Order Is Void & Fit To Be Quashed. The Ld. Counsel Further Submits That Since Legal Issue Goes To The Root Of The Matter, Therefore, The Same May Be Admitted For Adjudication. After Considering The Facts Of Jks Abasan Llp The Case & Keeping In View The Decisions Of The Hon’Ble Apex Court In The Case Of National Thermal Power Co. Ltd V. Cit [1998] 229 Itr 383, We Are Inclined To Admit The Legal Ground For Adjudication.

Section 143Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 10.03.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2017–18. 2. At the very outset

Sahanur Mondal, Taki vs. ITO, Ward 49(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 2159/KOL/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2013-14 Sahanur Mondal………….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant Dakshin Gollachanda, P.O Taki, Sankchura, North 24 Parganas-743429.. [Pan: Bogpm8081J] Vs. Ito, Ward-49(1), Kolkata..…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Miraj D Shah, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri S B Chakraborthy, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 20, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 14.08.2025 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2013–14. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Of The Assessee Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed His Return Of Income Declaring Income Of Rs.6,38,270/-. The Assessment Of The Assessee Was Reopened U/S 148 & The Assessee Could Not File Return Of Income. The Assessing Officer Noted That The Assessee Made Cash Deposits In Two Bank Accounts Of Assessee’S Minor Children. The Assessing Officer Assessed The Total Income Of The Assessee As Under: Sahanur Mondal

Section 148Section 250

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 14.08.2025 of the NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2013–14. 2. Brief facts

Fabtech, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 30(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 198/KOL/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Rajesh Kumar & Shri Pradip Kumar Choubeyassessment Year: 2015-16 Fabtech……………...…….....……..………………….……….……….……Appellant 102A, Ballygunge Place, Kol-700019. [Pan: Aadff1311L] Vs. Ito, Ward-30(1), Kolkata…...……...…………………….....……...…..…..Respondent Appearances By: Shri Ankit Jalan, Ar, Appeared On Behalf Of The Appellant. Shri Aditya Bikram, Sr. Dr, Appeared On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : February 04, 2026 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : February 24, 2026 Order Per Pradip Kumar Choubey: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 28.11.2024 Of The Nfac, Delhi Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”) For The Assessment Year 2015– 16. 2. Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Is An Individual & Filed Income Tax Return For The Year Under Consideration Declaring A Total Income Of Rs.4,27,000/-. The Case Of The Assessee Is Selected For Scrutiny & Accordingly Notice U/S 143(2) Of The Act Was Issued & In Response, The Ar Of The Assessee Appeared & Filed Relevant Documents & Submissions. The Assessing Officer Found That The Submissions Of The Assessee Are Not Tenable & An Amount Of Rs.98,83,992/- Which Is Alleged To Be Received During The Financial Year 2014-15 From Shapoorji Pallonji & Co. Ltd. Disallowed & Added Back To The Income Of The Assessee. Fabtech 3. Aggrieved By The Said Order, The Assessee Filed An Appeal Before The Cit(A) Wherein The Ld. Cit(A) Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

Section 143(2)Section 250

ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 28.11.2024 of the NFAC, Delhi passed u/s 250 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) for the assessment year 2015– 16. 2. Brief facts

Krishnamoorthy, Cuddalore vs. ITO, Ward 1, Cuddalore

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

ITA 3362/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri S.R. Raghunathaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.3362/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Krishnamoorthy, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 21, Krishna Nagar, 1St Street, Ward 1, Pathirikuppam, Thiruvendripuram, Cuddalore. Cuddalore 607 401. [Pan:Dzgpk4436J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri S. Aadhi Sesha Kumar, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 16.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 24.02.2026 आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 05.03.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. We Find That This Appeal Is Filed With A Delay Of 173 Days. The Assessee Filed An Affidavit For Condonation Of Delay Stating The Reasons. Upon Hearing Both The Parties & On Examination Of The Said Affidavit, We Find The Reasons Stated By The Assessee Are Bonafide, Which Really

For Appellant: Shri S. Aadhi Sesha Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT
Section 144Section 69

filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 05.03.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2017-18. 2. We find that this appeal is filed with a delay of 173 days. The assessee filed

No.K.779.Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co-Op Credit Society, Erode vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1) Erode, Erode

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2779/CHNY/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai24 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Raviआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2778 & 2779/Chny/2025 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2020-21 K 779 Guruvareddiyur Primary Agri Co- Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Op. Credit Society, Chennampatti Main Ward 2(1), Road, Guruvareddiyur Post, Bhavani Erode. Taluk, Erode 638 504. [Pan:Aaaag1657Q] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, Ca (Virtual) ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. R. Anita, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 14.01.2026 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement 24.02.2026 : आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi: Both The Appeals Filed By The Assessee Are Directed Against Separate Orders Dated 11.08.2025 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21 Towards Quantum Addition As Well As Levy Of Penalty Under Section 270A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [“Act” In Short].

For Appellant: Ms. A. Vijayalakshmi, CA (Virtual)For Respondent: Ms. R. Anita, Addl. CIT
Section 270A

filed by the assessee are directed against separate orders dated 11.08.2025 passed by the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [NFAC], Delhi for the assessment year 2020-21 towards quantum addition as well as levy of penalty under section 270A of the Income