BASHARAT AHMAD SHAH,RAINAWARI vs. ITO WARD-1, SRINAGAR

ITA 874/ASR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar28 September 2026AY 2017-186 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the assessee's explanation for the delay in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (NFAC) was reasonable and could be accepted. The Tribunal considered the affidavit filed by the assessee, which detailed the extraordinary circumstances faced, including the communication blackout in Jammu & Kashmir following the abrogation of Article 370, the COVID-19 pandemic and lockdowns, technical issues with the new income tax portal, and the delayed service of the assessment order. While the NFAC had partially accepted some reasons but ultimately dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay, the ITAT found that the assessee could be given the benefit of the doubt. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the NFAC and restored the issue back to the First Appellate Authority with a direction to condone the delay and adjudicate the appeal on its merits after providing a due and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Basharat Ahmad Shah, is an individual resident. For Assessment Year 2017-18, he did not file a return of income. Despite notices under Section 142(1) and a show-cause notice under Section 144, the assessee did not comply. The Assessing Officer completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144, treating Rs. 15,71,000 deposited in Specified Bank Notes (SBNs) as unexplained money under Section 69A and adding Rs. 7,82,150 representing 8% of total credit entries of Rs. 97,76,884. The assessee appealed to the NFAC, but the appeal was filed with a delay of 1,295 days. The NFAC dismissed the appeal in limine due to the unexplained delay. The assessee is now before the ITAT.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay of 1,295 days in filing the appeal before the First Appellate Authority (NFAC) should be condoned, considering the circumstances explained by the assessee? (Question of fact, turning on the interpretation of reasons for delay). Assessee's Contentions: - The delay was not intentional or deliberate but caused by circumstances beyond his control. - The abrogation of Article 370 led to a complete internet and telecom shutdown in Jammu & Kashmir for several months, preventing access to the e-filing portal, emails, and communication with advisors. - The ex-parte assessment order under Section 144 was not served in time, and he became aware of it much later due to communication and postal disruptions. - The COVID-19 lockdown further restricted movement, office functioning, and access to records. - The Supreme Court extended limitation periods from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022. - The new income tax portal had technical issues, including non-functioning of Form 35 filing. - He is a small businessman facing financial and administrative hardship. - The delay was bona fide and due to a combination of communication blackout, COVID lockdowns, portal malfunction, and non-service of the assessment order. Revenue's Contentions: - The judgment records no specific contentions from the Revenue regarding the condonation of delay.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 139(1),Section 142(1),Section 144,Section 69A

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR

Before: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE & SHRI GIRISH AGRAWAL, HON’BLE

For Respondent: Shri Prashant Singh, Sr. DR

PER: SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, V.P.: This is an appeal by the assessee against order dated 15-09-2025 of National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, for the Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The limited grievance of the assessee in the present appeal is against ex- parte disposal of the appeal by the First Appellate Authority that too in limine on the ground of delay.

2 Asst. Year: 2017-18

3.

Briefly the facts are, the assessee is a resident individual. For the assessment year in dispute, the assessee did not file any return of income under Section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in sort, “the Act”). As alleged by the Assessing O

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 139(1)

All 8,117 judgments and leading authorities on Section 139(1) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →