TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2018 (9) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....mon grounds in all these appeals. The ground raised for the assessment year 2009-10 are as under :- "1. That the ld. CIT (A) has erred on facts in dismissing the appeal by not condoning the delay occurred in filing the appeal. He failed to appreciate that the appellant being a government institution, no malafide was there in filing the appeal late. 2. Without prejudice to ground no. 1, the ld. AO has erred seriously in law and on facts in holding the appellant as assessee in default and charging the amount of TDS u/s 201(1) for Rs. 73,012/- and charging interest thereon u/s 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for Rs. 84,882/- by ignoring the cogent reason that for the period under consideration the appellant institution....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... electronically on 23rd February, 2018. The assessee has also filed application for condonation of delay before the ld. CIT (A) explaining the reasons for delay in filing the appeal as the assessee was advised by the Counsel to file the application under section 154 of the Act instead of challenging the orders passed under section 201(1)/201(1A) in appeal before the ld. CIT (A) and after the application was rejected, the assessee filed all these appeals on 5th September,2016 and, therefore, it was submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was due to wrong advise given by the earlier Counsel and there was no malafide intention of the assessee appellant in filing the appeals belatedly. Therefore, the assessee pleaded before the ld. CIT (A....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....s of the assessee may be disposed off on merits. He has referred to the decision of Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court in the assessee's own case and submitted that the Hon'ble High Court has held that there was no liability of the assessee for TDS deduction uptil 13.09.2013 as the assessee University itself came to be incorporated on 13.09.2013. Thus the ld. A/R has submitted that vide judgment dated 24th April, 2018 the Hon'ble Jurisdictional High Court has held that there cannot be any tax liability for non deduction of tax prior to the date of the assessee came into existence. 4. On the other hand, the ld. D/R has relied upon the orders of the ld. CIT (A) and submitted that the assessee has filed the appeals manually that too belated ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ter giving the due credit of the time consumed in the proceedings under section 154 of the Act. We find that there is nothing on record to suggest that by filing the appeals belatedly the assessee has achieved any ulterior purposes or the assessee has made any attempt to save the limitation in under hand way. When the reasons explained by the assessee were not found to be false or the assessee has acted as malafide then while considering the condonation of delay, a liberal and justice oriented approach has to be taken by the appellate authority/court. It is settled principle of law that when the reasons explained are found factually correct then the appellate authority/court should take a liberal view in construing the sufficiency of cause.....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to file manual appeal in time. Therefore, I rejected the condonation delay petition and the appeal is dismissed at admission stage." Thus it is admitted fact that the delay in filing the appeal after the application under section 154 was disposed off was 87 days which is not an abnormal or inordinate delay and even otherwise in the facts and circumstances of the case when the issue is not a direct tax liability of the assessee but the assessee was held as assessee in default which is vicarious liability for non deduction of tax and dependent on the fact whether recipient of the amount has already considered the same in the total income offered to tax or the income of the recipient was at all liable to tax. We further note that ....