NAGENDRA SINGH,GHAZIABAD vs. ITO WARD-2(3)(4), HAPUR

O R D E R PER M. BALAGANESH, A. M.: The appeal in AY 2018-19, arises out of 1. the order of the ld National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. NFAC’, in short] dated 29.03.2025 against the order of assessment passed u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) dated 28.08.2023 by the Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, Income Tax Department (hereinafter referred to as ‘ld. AO’).

The only issue to be decided in this appeal is as to whether the ld 2. CIT(A) was justified in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 272A(1)(d) of the Act by not condoning the delay in filing the appeal by 321 days in the facts and circumstances of the instant case.

None appeared on behalf of the assessee. We proceed to dispose of 3. this appeal on hearing the ld AR and based on the materials available on record. We find that the assessee had adduced reasons for delay before the ld CIT(A) by stating that the physical copy of the assessment order was not served on the assessee that that it was available only on the ITBA Portal. Even the assessment order was downloaded from the portal for the purpose of filing the appeal only after the receipt of telephonic call from the from the Income Tax Department. This goes to prove that the assessee is not conversant with technology and was not regularly checking the ITBA portal.

Considering the same and also considering the fact that these are 4. early stages of electronic way of communicating the statutory notices / orders, we direct the ld CIT(A) to condone the delay in filing the appeal and admit the appeal of the assessee for adjudication and decide the validity of levy of penalty in accordance with law. Accordingly, the grounds raised by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes by restoring the appeal to the file of the ld CIT(A).

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical 5. purposes.