“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

Noorul Hasan Shaikh, Mumbai vs. ITO-Ward 25(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7207/MUM/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopalassessment Year: 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Dinkle Haria (Virtually appeared) &For Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, SR. DR

Section 147Section 271(1)(c)

assessee is directed against order dated 30th September, 2025, passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [in short, Ld. CIT(A)] for assessment year 2015-16 in relation to penalty levied 2 Noorul Hasan Shaikh, AY 2015-16 by the Assessing Officer

Rajesh Saluja, Mumbai vs. Office of the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Mumbai

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

ITA 7177/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 54F

filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [‘Ld. CIT(A)’ for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre (“NFAC” for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’), pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.’ for short) 2017-18. The assessee

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7171/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

filed by the assessee, challenging the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax [‘Ld. CIT(A)' for short], National Faceless Appeal Centre ('NFAC' for short) passed u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act') pertaining to the Assessment Year (‘A.Y.' for short ... interest u/s 234A of Rs. 2,22,662/- f. Ground 7- Initiation of penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)(c) 2. The Learned CIT(A)-NFAC ought to have adjudicated all the grounds raised by the appellant. 3. Without prejudice to the above, an application u/s 154 dated 17.10.2025 have been

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7170/MUM/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Paresh Shaparia, ARFor Respondent: Shri Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. AR

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Bharat Kantilal Doshi, Mumbai vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 27(1), Navi Mumbai

ITA 7169/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant, Am & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal, Jm

Section 132(4)Section 147Section 148Section 154Section 234ASection 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

Bharti Nehru Kariya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 7104/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Manisha Ghind (Virtually appeared)

Section 69A

Delhi [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2020-21, raising following grounds: Bharti Nehru Kariya 1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) [NFAC] has erred in passing an Ex 1. The Hon'ble CIT (A) [NFAC] has erred in passing ... NFAC] has erred in passing an Ex-parte Appellate Order, without having offered reasonable opportunity Appellate Order, without having offered reasonable opportunity Appellate Order, without having offered reasonable opportunity of being heard. of being heard. 2. The Hon'ble C 2. The Hon'ble CIT (A) [NFAC] has failed

Dwarka Cement Works Limited(Converted Into Dwarka Cement Works LLP W.E.F 15-09-2022), Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(2)(1), Mumbai

ITA 6706/MUM/2025[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokar

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 274

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "D" BENCH MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI MAKARAND VASANT MAHADEOKAR, ACCOUNTANT

Rita Anil Kapoor, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed

ITA 6640/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarrita Anil Kapoor National Faceless Assessment Rowhouse No. 6, Grand Paradi, Centre, Delhi August Kranti Marg, Kemps Corner, Vs. [Present Jurisdiction Income-Tax Mumbai-400 036 Officer Ward 19(2)(4)-Mumbai] Pan/Gir No. Atvpk 7073 K (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri M. P. Lohia Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Assessee, Arises Out Of Order Dated 19.08.2025 Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2013-14. 2. The Solitary Issue On Merit Is Concerning The Addition Of An Amount Of Rs.6,60,37,500/- U/S. 69 Of The Act, Representing Alleged Unexplained Investment In Purchase Of Immovable Property.

For Appellant: Shri M. P. LohiaFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri

Section 147Section 69

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: The present appeal by the assessee, arises out of order dated 19.08.2025 passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2013-14. 2. The solitary issue on merit is concerning the addition of an amount of Rs.6 ... under dispute, the assessee did not filed her return of income, since, she did not have any reportable income. 2 Rita Anil Kapoor vs. NFAC 4. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer (‘A.O.’ for short) received information that in the year under consideration, the assessee had purchased an immovable property investing huge

Ronak Ashok Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 41(3)(3), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 6639/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarronak Ashok Shah Ito-41(3)(3) 1803, Raj Hans Apt., Kautilya Bhavan, Jitendra Road, Malad (E) Vs. Mumbai Mumbai-400 097 Pan/Gir No. Bdjps 9744 J (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Rajesh Kothari Respondent By : Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. Ar) Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against Order Dated 10.03.2025, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2018-19. 2. In Ground No. 1, The Assessee Has Raised Grievance Against The Ex Parte Disposal Of The Appeal By Ld. First Appellate Authority. Whereas, Ground Nos. 2 To 5 Are On The Issue Of Validity Of Reopening Of Assessment. Ground Nos. 6 & 7 Are On The Authority Of The Jurisdictional Assessing Officer (Jao) In Completing The Assessment. Whereas, Ground Nos. 8 To 11 Are On Merits.

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh KothariFor Respondent: Shri Annavaram Kosuri (Sr. AR)

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 10.03.2025, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2018-19. 2. In ground no. 1, the assessee has raised grievance against the ex parte disposal

Chenaram Habtaji Parihar, Mumbai vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Central Circle -4(2), Mumbai

ITA 5630/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry & Shri Jagadish

Section 132Section 153CSection 69

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT

DCIT, Central Circle 7(1), Mumbai vs. Balaji Bullions and Commodities India Private Limited, Mumbai

ITA 3915/MUM/2025[2017]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal ()

Section 131Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA

Income Tax Officer-19(2)(2), Mumbai vs. Mahesh K Joshi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 3032/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Makarand Vasant Mahadeokarincome Tax Officer-19(2)(2) Mahesh K Joshi 503, 5Th Floor, Income Tax Office, 42, A/3, 479 Jariwala Building, Vs. Piramal Chambers, Lalbaug, Arther Road, Tardeo, Mumbai-400 012 Mumbai-400 034 Pan/Gir No. Aadhm 4623 G (Appellant) : (Respondent) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Annavram Kosuri Date Of Hearing : 18.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 23.02.2026 O R D E R Per Saktijit Dey: The Present Appeal By The Department Arises Out Of The Order Dated 24.02.205, Passed By National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘Nfac’ For Short), Delhi For The Assessment Year (A.Y. For Short) 2011-12. 2. Though The Department Has Raised Multiple Grounds, However, The Solitary Issue Arising In The Appeal Relates To Deletion Of Addition Of Rs.1,04,16,232/- Made By The Assessing Officer (A.O. For Short), Alleging Non-Genuine Transaction. When The Matter Was Called Out, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. A Perusal Of Record Reveals That On Earlier Occasions Also The Assessee Failed To Appear, Though, Several Notices Of Hearing Were Sent To The Assessee. Keeping In View The Nature Of Dispute & Other Attending Facts & Circumstances, We Deem It Appropriate To Dispose Of The Appeal Ex Parte Qua The Assessee With The Assistance Of Ld. Departmental Representative (‘Ld. Dr’ For Short) & Based On Facts & Materials Available On Record.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Annavram Kosuri

Section 132(4)Section 147

Saktijit Dey, Vice President: The present appeal by the department arises out of the order dated 24.02.205, passed by National Faceless Appeal Centre (‘NFAC’ for short), Delhi for the assessment year (A.Y. for short) 2011-12. 2. Though the department has raised multiple grounds, however, the solitary issue arising