ITAT Delhi Condones Delay Caused by Portal-Only Service in Faceless Assessment Regime
Background of the Dispute
In the case of Nagendra Singh Vs Assessment Unit, the Delhi Bench ‘A’ of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) examined whether a substantial delay of 321 days in filing an appeal could be condoned when the assessee claimed to be unaware of an order that was only uploaded on the income tax portal.
The controversy revolved around a penalty imposed under Section 272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act 1961, and the refusal of the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) to condone the delay in filing the first appeal before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)].
The matter pertains to Assessment Year 2018-19 and arose from:
- An order of the Assessment Unit dated 28.08.2023, passed under
Section 272A(1)(d)of the Act. - A subsequent order of the NFAC (acting as CIT(A)) dated 29.03.2025, refusing to condone a delay of 321 days in filing the appeal and thereby sustaining the penalty on technical grounds.
The assessee carried the matter in further appeal before the ITAT, challenging the refusal to condone the delay rather than the penalty on merits at this stage.
Core Issue Before the Tribunal
The Tribunal narrowed the dispute to a single decisive question:
Whether the ld CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone a delay of 321 days in filing the appeal against the penalty order passed under
Section 272A(1)(d)of the Income Tax Act 1961, particularly in the context of a faceless, electronic communication regime where the assessee claimed to be unaware of the order that existed only on the ITBA portal.
Accordingly, the ITAT confined itself to examining:
- The genuineness and sufficiency of the assessee’s explanation for delay; and
- Whether, in the circumstances, the appeal ought to have been admitted and heard on merits.
Facts Highlighted Before the ITAT
Non-receipt of Physical Order
The assessee had placed before the ld CIT(A) a specific explanation for the delayed filing:
- The penalty order dated 28.08.2023 under
Section 272A(1)(d)was never served physically on the assessee. - The order existed only as an uploaded document on the ITBA portal of the Income Tax Department.
- The assessee became aware of the existence of this order only after receiving a telephonic call from the Department.
It was further explained that the assessee:
- Was not well-versed with digital platforms and the mechanics of the ITBA portal;
- Did not habitually log into or monitor the portal; and
- Downloaded the order from the portal only for the purpose of filing the appeal, once he was alerted telephonically.
These facts were not seriously disputed, and formed the basis of the assessee’s plea for condonation.
Limited Technological Familiarity
The ITAT took note of an important contextual factor: