AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (2) TMI 38
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year 2012-13 to deliberate upon and to adjudicate on the issue involved, our order wherein passed, shall mutatis mutandis apply to the remaining appeals. 4. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal in ITA No. 364/RPR/2023: 1) In the facts and circumstances of, the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of Ld. Income-tax Officer (TDS) treating the appellant as assessee in default and working out total demand payable at Rs. 4,30,668/- u/s 201(1) /201(1A) of the Income-tax Act, 1961. 2) In the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) has erred confirming action of Id. Assessing Officer treating the appellant as assessee in default and working out total demand payable at Rs. 4,30,668/- u/s 201(1)/201(1A) ignoring the fact that the recipient is registered u/s. 12AA of the Act and has filed its return of income taking the sum received on which TDS was not made for computing income. 3) The impugned order is bad in law and on facts. 4) The appellant reserves the right to add, alter or omit all or any of the grounds of appe....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... to various govt. schools located in Bhilai Municipal Area. 3. Aggrieved from the order of Id. Income-tax Officer the appellant file appeal before the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) on 26/04/2019. 4. That the Id. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) decided the appeal ex-parte u/s. 250 on 12/09/2022. 5. That the appellant received letter dtd. 31/03/2023 from ITO(TDS), Bhilai requesting to make payment of outstanding demand for the relevant Assessment years. Copy of letter is enclosed here with as Annexure-I for kind perusal. 6. That immediately after receipt of letter the applicant checked ITBA portal and came to know that the appeal was decided ex-parte on 12/09/2022. The appellant neither received notice u/s. 250 nor appellate order earlier. 7. That the applicant did not receive any of the notice for hearing u/s 250 of the Act and came to know about the order only on 31/03/2023 while filing reply to the recovery of demand notice. 8. That though the applicant came to know the order only on 31/03/2023. Since the appeal order is dated 12/09/2022 as a matter of abundant precaution the applicant is filing present applicat....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....gh Court. 2. M/s Karnataka Forest Development Corporation Ltd. vs. ACIT 6. The affidavit filed in support of the application condonation of delay discloses that, after the order was passed by the Commissioner for Appeals, there was a change of Managing Director though the Chartered Accountant of the Company opined that it a fit case appeal and prepared the papers and even sent them to the Managing Director for signature, It is because of the change of the Managing Director, the importance of the same was not noticed and as it is a Government company they took their own time to get the papers signed and to file the appeal. It is in these circumstances, there is a delay of 310 days. The Tribunal has viewed the matter from the very narrow angle. No doubt, it is the law that every day's delay has to explained, but, at the same time here, where government is the appellant, having regard to the way that the government and its officers' functions, the courts have been taking lenient view in condoning the delay appeals filed by them. In the instant cases it is not disputed after the order came to be passe, the Managing Director was changed and thereafter, the Char....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he provisions of the Act. With such agitations, Ld. Sr. DR prayed to reject the request of the assessee seeking condonation of delay in filing of the appeal in the present cases. 11. We have considered the submissions of for the parties, perused the material available on record and case laws submitted by the Ld. AR on behalf of the assessee to support the contention to condone the delay involved in filing of appeal before us. Admittedly in the present case the assessee has filed the appeal with delay of 384 days (which the assessee has mentioned as 388 days), such delay as rightly alleged by revenue is an inordinate delay. Although the claim of Ld. AR that the delay involved in filing of present appeal has occurred on account of non-receipt of notice u/s 250 and the appellate order passed on 12.09.2022 but the assessee was duty bound to access the portal without fail, specially when the appeal has been filed at the instance of the assessee appellant. It is also an admitted fact as accepted by the assessee appellant that it had come to know about the appellate order passed by Ld. CIT(A), immediately, when they visited the ITBA portal, may be only when they were prompted after rec....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....support on this aspect from the decision in ITA no. 323 to 341/RPR/2023 dated 05.12.2023 by SMC bench, Raipur wherein, on a similar issue, the observations of tribunal are as under: 15. At this stage, I may herein observe that where an application for condonation of delay has been moved bonafide, then, the Court would normally condone the delay, but where the delay has not been explained at all and in fact there is an unexplained and inordinate delay coupled with negligence or sheer carelessness, then, the discretion of the court in such cases would normally tilt against the applicant. My aforesaid conviction is supported by the order of "Division Bench" of the ITAT, Mumbai in the case of M/s. Phoenix Mills Ltd. Vs. Asstt. CIT in ITA No.6240/MUM/2007 for A.Y.1999- 2000, dated 23.03.2020. Reverting to the facts of the present case, I have already examined the reasons that had led to the inordinate delay, which has not been explained by the assessee society to have occasioned due to bonafide reasons. As observed by me hereinabove, as there was no justifiable reason for the assessee society to file the present appeal after 493 days from the lapse of the prescribed period, the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e matter before the CIT(Appeals) had unfortunately expired in the month of April, 2021, therefore, its case for the said reason had, thereafter, remained unattended; (ii) that the assessee society is based in a rural area; (iii) that the staff of the assessee society which was working under the Government supervision and Jila Sahakari Bank in a rural area, was not computer literate; (iv) that books of the account of the assessee society was being manually maintained; and (v) that access of internet was also not proper in the rural area where the assessee society was based. As observed by me hereinabove, the conduct of the assessee society reveals beyond doubt that the delay in filing of the appeal had occasioned on account of sheer negligence and carelessness on its part as regards filing of the present appeal within the stipulated time period. 18. Also, as observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal, Motilal and Chotelal Vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR (1962) 361 (SC) that seeker of justice must come with clean hands, therefore, now when in the present appeal 23 ITA No. 323/RPR/2023 & 18 Others Gramin Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit before me the assessee appel....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n of delay in filing of the appeals. 14. In view of aforesaid observations, facts and circumstances, respectfully following the view adopted by the tribunal in ITA 323 to 341/RPR/2023 (supra), we are of the considered opinion that the assessee appellant has squarely failed to substantiate with any plausible and sufficient reasons to justify the condonation of inordinate delay of 384 days involved in filing of the present appeal. We, therefore, in our thoughtful consideration do not find any merit in the explanations and reasons submitted by the assessee towards the request seeking the condonation of delay in filling of the captioned appeal, therefore, we decline the same, and, thus, without adverting to the merits of the case dismiss the captioned appeal of the assessee, as barred by limitation. 15. In the result appeal of the assessee in ITA no, 364/RPR/2023 for assessment year 2012-13 stands dismissed, in terms of our aforesaid observations. 16. As the facts pertaining to delay involved in the captioned respective appeals filed by the assessee are also on similar lines and the reasons extended towards such delay remains the same as were there before us in aforementioned ....