Assessee's Appeals Dismissed for Delay in Filing - Importance of Timely Compliance

The appeals filed by the assessee were dismissed by the Tribunal due to the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)]. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period of limitation and the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for any delay. The appeals were dismissed as unadmitted, with the order pronounced on October 8, 2018.

---

---

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
3. Merits of the case regarding the late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A):

The primary issue in these appeals concerns the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the assessee. The delays ranged from 285 days to 913 days across various branches for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee attributed the delay to the transfer of the officer handling the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) issues, leading to the late filing of appeals.

2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:

The assessee submitted affidavits explaining that the delay was due to the transfer of the officer concerned. However, the Tribunal found this reason too general and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no proper explanation for the prolonged delay and no evidence of steps taken to expedite the filing of appeals. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in the case of "Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd, and Another," which highlighted the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government departments, and condonation of delay is an exception, not a rule. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee, being a scheduled bank with access to qualified personnel, should have been more diligent in pursuing its remedies within the statutory period.

3. Merits of the case regarding the late filing fee under Section 234E:

The assessee argued that it had a good case on merit, citing a previous Tribunal decision in favor of the assessee in a similar case. However, the Tribunal clarified that each case for condonation of delay must be decided based on the specific explanation offered for the delay. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the delay should be condoned merely because the issue on merit was covered in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal stressed that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation and ensure that legal remedies are pursued within a legislatively fixed period.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay, and as such, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as unadmitted.

Conclusion:

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee due to the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period of limitation and the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for any delay. The appeals were dismissed as unadmitted, and the order was pronounced in open court on October 8, 2018.

---