2018 (9) TMI 1010
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nd 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 was not in existence and hence no liability can be cast up....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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) to condone the delay of about 5 months in filing the appeals. The....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....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 by 173, 180 and 548 days and even the appeals were filed after a delay of ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion 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. In the case in hand, the reasons explained by the assessee are all matter o....