PRASAD NIMBA THAKUR,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-13(4), PUNE, PUNE

This is an appeal filed by the assessee directed against the order of the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘NFAC’] dated 15.06.2023 for the assessment year 2018-19.

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is an individual and Resident deriving income under the head “salaries”. During the previous year relevant to the assessment year under France. The salary income earned in France for services rendered by him in France and claimed the benefit of foreign tax credit of Rs.1,19,191/- under the provisions of section 90 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (‘the Act’) read with Article 25(1) of the India-France Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement (‘DTAA’). The said return of income was processed u/s 143(1) of the Act for the assessment year 2018-19 without granting the foreign tax credit vide Intimation dated 28.05.2020. 3. Being aggrieved, an appeal was filed before the NFAC on 24.03.2023 with the delay of 1000 days. The NFAC after excluding the period of delay attributable to the Covid-19 Pandemic covered by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Cognizance for Extension of Limitation, In re (2022) 441 ITR 722 (SC) dated 10.01.2022, wherein, the limitation prescribed by various statutes was suo motu extended on account of difficulties faced by the citizens of the country on account of Pandemic Covid-19, the delay occurred from 01.03.2022 to 24.03.2023 i.e. 389 days was not condoned and dismissed the appeal in limine without entering into the merits of the issues in appeal. 4. Being aggrieved, the appellant is in appeal before this Tribunal in the present appeal. 5. When the appeal was called on, none appeared on behalf of the appellant-assessee despite due service of notice of hearing. 6. On the other hand, ld. Sr. DR placing reliance on the orders of the lower authorities submits that no interference is called for. 7. I heard the ld. Sr. DR and perused the material on record. I had carefully gone through the explanation furnished by the assessee before the NFAC for delay in filing the appeal is that the assessee was pursuing the alternative remedy having recourse to the provisions of section 154 against the intimation. It is well settled position of law that the delay occurred on account of pursuing alternative remedy constitutes a reasonable cause for not filing the appeal in time. In the circumstances, I am of the considered opinion that the NFAC was not justified in not condoning the delay. Therefore, the order of the NFAC is hereby set-aside and remitted to