TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (7) TMI 342
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....g the appeals. 2. The brief facts of the case are that a survey was conducted u/s. 133A of the Act on 05.03.2015 to verify the compliance of TDS provisions on certain payments as per Receipt & Payment account which is incorporated by the AO in his order. The assessee is a Gram Panchayat (Town Municipal Corporation), a State Govt. Organization, carrying out the main functions of Government Schemes like Ashraya Scheme, Indira Awas Yojana, etc. The documents were called for and it was noticed that assessee was required to deduct TDS u/s. 194C on the total payments under different heads. During the assessment proceedings, part reply was submitted by the assessee. The AO noted that it is admitted fact that TDS has not been deducted and accordin....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ling of appeal. In support of his arguments he relied on the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Child Development Project Officer in ITA No.882 to 890/Bang/2013, order dated 09.01.2024. 6. The ld. DR submitted that assessee is a State Govt. department and should have been aware of Rules & Regulations for running the office and whether it is located in rural or urban area is irrelevant. The Govt. Officer has to discharge duties with due diligence. But this is clear case of negligence and appeal should have been filed within the due date prescribed under the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has passed a good reasoned order and it should not be disturbed. 7. Considering the rival submissions, we note that a survey was conducted and it was noted tha....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....and held that there was sufficient and reasonable cause on the part of the assessee for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation. Hon'ble Madras High Court thus condoned nearly 21 years of delay in filing the appeal. As compared to 21 years, delay of about 1000 to 2000 days cannot be considered to be inordinate or excessive. 10. Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their discretion on the facts of each case keeping in mind that in construing the expression "sufficient cause" the principle of advancing ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e, the Revenue has not filed any counter-affidavit opposing the application of the assessee, therefore, as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court, there is sufficient cause for condonation of delay. Hon'ble Supreme Court also observed that; "It does not mean that when the delay was for longer period, the delay should not be condoned even though there was sufficient cause. Condonation of delay is the discretion of the Court/ Tribunal. Therefore, it would depend upon the facts of each case. In our opinion, when there is sufficient cause for not filing the appeal within the period of limitation, the delay deserves to be condoned, irrespective of the duration/period. 12. With the above observations, following the above judgments, in our consi....