TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2023 (11) TMI 189
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....te and rejected the appeal filed by the appellant treating the appeal as time barred without going into merits of the case. The Appellant Bank relies on various Judgements of Hon'ble Courts related to Condonation of Delay in filing appeals and requests Hon'ble ITAT to consider the appeal and set aside the order of Id. CIT(A). GROUND NO 2: Insertion of clause (c) to section 200a (1) of the IT Act specifically w.e.f,1.06.2015 The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered that TDS-CPC has been empowered to make claim and generate intimation u/s 200A for late fees (u/s 234E) for all the statements filed on or after 01 Jun-2015and not before. Hence, The Appellant pleads that intimations against all statement filed before 01-Jun-2015 should be quashed. GROUND NO, 3: Prospective effect w.e.f. 01-Jun-2015 of Section 200A(1(c) read with Section 234E The Id. CIT (A) has erred and not considered that since the appeal under consideration is in respect to Demand under Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E for TDS returns filed pertaining to period prior to 01.06.2015, the impugned notices for late filing l....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....iled written submissions supporting the case of the assessee and urged for condonation of delay before first appellate authority. 3. The Ld. Sr. DR, on the other hand, drawing attention to the impugned order, submitted that there was inordinate delay for which no justifiable reason has been adduced by the assessee. The Ld. Sr. DR pleaded for dismissal of the appeals of the assessee. 4. The quantum of delay as tabulated by Ld. AR, in each of the appeal, is as under: - No. ITA No. AY Actual date of filing of original return Date of intimation u/s. 200A against which appeal was filed before CIT (Date of order of Assessing Officer) Date of filing of Form 35 CIT APPEAL No. of days of delay for CIT(A) 1 1009/Chny/2023 2013-14 04-12-2012 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 2 1010/Chny/2023 2013-14 15-03-2013 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 3 1011/Chny/2023 2013-14 15-03-2013 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 4 1012/Chny/2023 2013-14 15-03-2013 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 5 1013/Chny/2023 2014-15 11-04-2014 17-04-2017 24-01-2023 2078 6 1014/Chny/2023 2014-15 30-06-2014 ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....een 2175 days to 3300 days which roughly translates into 6 to 9 years. The same has led Ld. CIT(A) to dismiss all the appeals for want of condonation of delay. 5. The reasons adduced by Ld. CIT(A), in the impugned order declining to condone the delay, are as under: - 4.3. The above placed request of the appellant to condone the delay in filing of appeal have been duly considered. Appellant in its application for condonation has stated that delay may be condone keeping in view of the above reason. On plain reading of reason or cause narration by the appellant for condonation of delay, it is noticed that there exist no sufficient good reason for condoning the delay and the cause shown is neither a satisfactory cause nor a sufficient cause. Therefore, notice u/s. 250 of the Act was issued on 14/07/2023 and the case was posted for hearing on 21/07/2023 to provide opportunity of being heard in view of natural justice wherein assessee was asked to furnish written submission on registered e-mail ID or on e- filing portal. In response thereto, reply was filed on 21/07/2023 furnishing the written submission along with the very same application for condonation of delay which is r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....t's request for condonation of delay in filing of appeal and appellant's reply, it is noticed that the appellant, Tamil Nadu Grama Bank, has elaborated on the difficulties encountered in complying TDS provision. However, it has not provided specific reasons that prevented them from filing the appeal within the stipulated time. Merely stating the difficulties faced in complying with the TDS provision is deemed irrelevant in justifying the delay. 4.5 In subsequent paragraphs, the appellant attributes the delay to the COVID-19 pandemic, claiming that it affected their ability to file the appeal in a timely manner. It is essential to reiterate that the order u/s. 200A was passed on 11/12/2013 and duly served on 14/12/2013. Accordingly, the appeal should have been filed on or before 14/01/2013, within 30 days from the service of the order. However, the appeal was filed on 24/01/2023, with a delay of 3297 days. The appellant had sufficient time to file the appeal before the COVID-19 pandemic emerged in March 2020. 4.6 Further, appellant has cited various judicial decisions from higher authorities to justify the delay in filing the appeal. These decisions, includ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ovided further that where an application has been made under subsection (1) of section 270AA, the period beginning from the date on which the application is made, to the date on which the order rejecting the application is served on the assessee, shall be excluded, or (c) in any other case, the date on which intimation of the order sought to be appealed against is served. (2A) Notwithstanding anything contained in sub-section (2), where an order has been made under section 201 on or after the 1st day of October, 1998 but before the 1st day of June, 2000 and the assessee in default has not presented any appeal within the time specified in that sub-section, he may present such appeal before the 1st day of July, 2000. (3) The Commissioner (Appeals) may admit an appeal after the expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period." 5. It is pertinent to note that the delay may be condoned and the appeal may be admitted u/s. 249(3) only if the appellant could successfully demonstrate that it had sufficient cause for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....visaged in Section 5 of Limitation Act. Hence, the general rule of law of limitation is that an extension shall not be granted under Section 5 if there is no sufficient cause or cogent ground for the condonation of delay, the onus of proving which lies on the appellant/applicant as clearly laid down in the judicial pronouncements by the Highest Courts of Law. 8. In the case of Perumon Bhagvathy Devaswom, Perinadu Village v. Bhargavi Amma (Dead) by LRs, (2008)8 sec 321, the Hon'ble SC had enunciated certain principles in which are applicable while considering applications for condonation of delay under Section 5 which may be summarized as follows: "13....The words "sufficient cause for not making the application within the period of limitation" should be understood and applied in a reasonable, pragmatic, practical and liberal manner, depending upon the facts and circumstances of the case, and the type of case. The words "sufficient cause in Section 5 of the Limitation Act should receive a liberal construction sc as 12 advance substantial justice, when the delay is not on account of any dilator tactics, want of bona fides, deliberate inaction or neglige....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... fall within the scope of normal human conduct or normal conduct of a litigant. The Hon'ble Bombay HC further observed that while Section 5 of the Limitation Act is being interpreted liberally, it cannot be so liberally that it is without any justification, since condonation of delay in a mechanical or routine manner will jeopardize the legislative intent behind Section 5. 12. In the case of University of Delhi Vs Union of India &Ors. in Civil Appeal No. 9488 of 2019 vide Order dated 17/12/2019, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has refused to condone delay by holding that, "the entire explanation as noted above, depicts the casual approach unmindful of the law of limitation despite being aware of the position of law. That apart when there is such a long delay and there is no proper explanation, laches would also come into play while noticing as to the manner in which a party has proceeded before filing an appeal. 28. In the matter of condonation of delay and laches, the well accepted position is also that the accrued right of the opposite party cannot be lightly dealt with." 13. From the above decisions it becomes clear that in the case of condo....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....9;ble Mumbai Tribunal in the case of Prashant Projects Ltd. vs. DCIT (2013) 37 taxmann.com 137 has held that by adopting a liberal view in condoning delay is one of the guiding principles in the realm of belated appeals, but liberal approach cannot be equated with a license to file appeals at will-disregarding the time-limits fixed by the Statutes. The behavior of the assessee could be termed as personified in action and negligence which would not constitute reasonable cause. 19. Further, Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vedabai Alias Vaijayanatabai Baburao Patil Vs. Shantaram Baburao Patil, 253 ITR 798, it was held as follows: - "In exercising discretion under section 5 of the Limitation Act, the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach. A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor so the case calls for a more cautious approach but in the latter case no such consideration may arise and such case deserves a liberal approach." 20. Further, ITAT, Chennai in the case of JCIT vs. Trac....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....rdinate delay in filing the appeal, the assessee could not adduce sufficient or reasonable cause to justify the inordinate delay. As noted by Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is a regional rural bank and assisted by qualified professionals who simply ignored the statutory notices / orders issued by assessing officer and also various limitations given in the Act for the purpose of filing appeal. The conduct of the assessee shows gross negligence which does not justify the condonation of delay. The various case laws as enumerated by Ld. CIT(A) supports this reasoning. It could thus be seen that Ld. CIT(A), in a very detailed manner, considered the condonation plea of the assessee and arrived at a conclusion that there was no reasonable or justifiable cause with the assessee in filing the appeals with such an inordinate delay. 7. The Ld. AR has submitted that the assessee is serving in the remote areas. Initially, the TDS compliances were being handled individually branch-wise. However, due to increase in compliance provisions and complexities of TDS provisions, branches used to face many difficulties in complying with it on timely manner. The TIN Facilitation Centre where TDS statement wa....