Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was delayed by 564 days. The original assessment was made under Section 144, and the order was misplaced during house renovation. The delay was further compounded by the COVID-19 pandemic and the transition to the faceless assessment system.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, setting aside the NFAC order. The matter was restored to the AO for a fresh adjudication, with a direction for proper hearing and a reasoned order. The assessee was directed to comply with future notices.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to genuine hardship caused by pandemic and transition to a new system, and if so, whether the matter should be remanded for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘SMC’ BENCH, BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI KESHAV DUBEY
PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi dated 20-02-2025 for the assessment year 2017-18.
Briefly stated facts are that the appeal was delayed by 564 days before the ld. CIT-A. The assessment was made under section 144 of the Act on 20.09.2019. The assessee received the order on 24.09.2019. At that time, her house was under renovation, and the order got misplaced. Later, from 24.03.2020, the country went into lockdown due to Covid-19. Her husband, daughter, and son-in-law were infected, and she was busy looking after them. She received a demand notice on 18.02.2021. After that, she collected the order copy and filed the appeal on 09.04.2021. Meanwhile, a new system – the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) – had come into force. The appeal got transferred to NFAC. The assessee was not aware of how the new scheme worked and could not track the process properly. This also contributed to the delay. She filed an affidavit and attached medical papers to support her explanation. However, the ld. CIT-A did not condone the delay and dismissed the appeal as non-maintainable.
At the time of hearing, the ld. AR submitted that the delay was not deliberate. The assessee was new to the faceless system and acted quickly after getting the demand. He promised full cooperation if the matter is remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication as per law.
On the other hand, the ld. DR opposed the condonation. He argued that the time for filing the appeal ended before Covid started and the delay was due to negligence. He pointed out that NFAC had rightly dismissed the appeal for delay.
We considered the facts and the materials available on record. It is true that the appeal was not filed in time. There was some carelessness in not preserving the order. But we also see that the assessee faced genuine problems. Covid-19 affected her family, and the switch to NFAC made it harder for her to understand the process. She is not well-versed with such systems. Once she received the demand, she took steps without further delay. In our view, the delay is explained with . reasonable cause. The ld. AR has also assured that the assessee will comply with all future notices and cooperate the proceedings before the AO.
5.1 We therefore condone the delay. So, we set aside the NFAC order and restore the matter to the file of the AO to decide the appeal afresh as per law. The AO shall give proper hearing and pass a reasoned and speaking order as required under the law. The assessee is also directed to comply with notices and attend the proceedings. Hence, the ground of appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes. *
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in court on 2nd day of July, 2025