Death of Authorized Representative in Faceless Regime Constitutes Sufficient Cause for Condoning Delay in Filing Appeal

The appellant, an individual assessee, was subjected to a reassessment under Section 147 of the Income Tax Act for the Assessment Year 2017-2018 regarding the purchase price of an immovable property.

The Assessing Officer (AO) passed an ex-parte order making an addition of Rs. 13,76,200/-.

The assessee appealed to the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), which dismissed the appeal in limine due to a 430-day delay.

The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) subsequently affirmed this dismissal on November 21, 2025, on grounds of limitation, citing a failure to provide documentary evidence for "sufficient cause".

The appellant contended the delay was caused by the terminal illness and death of his authorized representative, who managed his digital portal.

1. Whether the Tribunal’s dismissal of an appeal solely on grounds of delay without considering a jurisdictional challenge constitutes a "perverse" exercise of discretion?

2. Whether the death of an authorized representative and the transition of files in a faceless regime constitute "sufficient cause" for condonation of delay?

3. Whether the underlying assessment is a jurisdictional nullity for failure to obtain mandatory approval from the PCCIT under Section 151?

The court primarily applied Section 260A of the Income Tax Act, 1961, regarding appeals to the High Court.

It relied on the "liberal approach" to condonation of delay established in Collector, Land Acquisition vs. MST Katiji, emphasizing substantial justice over technicalities.

The court also cited Inder Singh vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, affirming that a flexible view is mandatory when limitation grounds undermine the merits of a case.

Regarding jurisdiction, it applied Section 151 of the Act and the precedent Subhra Basu vs. Union of India, which holds that reassessment approval by an unauthorized authority renders the proceedings a nullity.

The court reasoned that in a digital "faceless" tax regime, the death of a professional representative constitutes a force majeure event for an assessee, as it creates a communication vacuum and prevents access to necessary digital portals.

It found the Tribunal's approach "overly rigid and hyper-technical," noting that the appellant should not be denied justice for a delay caused by circumstances beyond his control.

Most significantly, the court determined that the alleged jurisdictional defect (failure to obtain PCCIT approval under Section 151) strikes at the root of the assessment.

Because a jurisdictional error of this magnitude cannot be shielded by the law of limitation, the court concluded that the Tribunal erred by prioritizing a procedural threshold over a potentially void ab initio order.

It condoned the 430-day delay, set aside the ITAT order dated November 21, 2025, and remanded the matter to the ITAT Kolkata Bench for fresh adjudication on its merits.

The Court specifically directed the Tribunal to decide the jurisdictional validity of the assessment under Section 151 as a preliminary issue.

IA No. GA 1 of 2026 was also disposed of accordingly.