TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2026 (2) TMI 1121
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....on request these appeals for the sake of brevity & convenience are heard together for being disposed-off by this common & consolidated order. 3. In advancing these matters together, the first appeal ITA No. 169/PAN/2025 is taken as lead case, resultantly our adjudication laid in succeeding paragraphs shall mutatis-mutandis apply to remaining two appeals and be read as such. 4. Tersely stated common facts arising out of the case records are that; 4.1 The 'Samadevi Galli, Belgum Branch of Corporation Bank', ['assessee branch'] was operating as a registered branch of Public Sector Bank namely the Corporation Bank ['assessee']. The assessee branch was registered with the Revenue as tax deductor to which it allotted a Tax Deduction & Collection Account Number ['TAN']: BRLC05017F. To ascertain compliance with provisions of Chapter XVII by the assessee branch i.e. deduction & collection of taxes at source ['TDS'], the Revenue conducted a survey/spot verification u/s 133A of the Act on the assessee branch on 03/10/2017 to 04/10/2017. The survey/spot verification revealed certain discrepancies in compliance of applicable provisions of Chapter XVII of the Act, which were confronted ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....w.e.f. 01/04/2020. As a result, all branches, customers, and operations of erstwhile Corporation Bank ['CB'] became part of UBI. In consequence, the assessee branch commenced operating as the Branch of UBI w.e.f. 01/04/2020 which later applied for and allotted of new TAN : BLRU04750E. The earlier TAN: BRLC05017F allotted to assessee branch against which aforestated assessments were framed is also continued and as confirmed by the appellant from 'Traces-Report' and solidified by the Revenue from records that said TAN is still active as on this date. 4.5 Aggrieved by the orders of Ld. AO, the deductor assessee branch of CB contested against the levy & recovery of penalty for short deduction / non-deduction of TDS and imposition of interest in appeal before Ld. NFAC u/s 246A(1)(ha) of the Act, but remained unsuccessful. 4.6 Aggrieved by the separate orders of Ld. NFAC passed u/s 250 of the Act, the merged/amalgamated assessee bank ['appellant'] came in present bunch of appeals with a delay of 803 days (as endorsed by registry) from the expiry of time limit within which these appeals u/s 253(1) were required to be filed. 5. At the outset of hearing, candidly accepting that the....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....e physical copy of impugned orders and passing of orders were not within the knowledge of the appellant until tax recovery proceedings were initiated, the appellant placed strong reliance respectively on 'Meda Raja Kishor Raghuramy Reddy Vs ACIT' [160 taxmann.com 416 (Panaji-Tribunal)] and 'Senior Bhosale Estate (HUF) Vs ACIT' [2019, 112 Taxmann.com 134 (SC)]. 8. Au contraire, the Ld. DR Uniyal strongly objected the condonation petition & prayer of the appellant. It was refuted that, the basic facts of the case under consideration are ostensibly mis-stated & incorrectly represented by the appellant. Drawing our attention to appeals memo i.e. Form No. 36, from point 3(b & c) it was pointed out to the bench that, the appellant while filing these appeals have already confirmed the fact that impugned orders were duly served upon or communicated to it on very same day when they were passed. Referring to notarised affidavit of executive director of the appellant bank (dt. 1st Jan, 2026), it was argued that all the more, the executive director similarly deposed on same line confirming the service of impugned orders on even day of their passing by the Ld. NFAC. Therefore the case laws r....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... first appellate orders for three assessment years under consideration ['impugned orders'] were respectively passed by Ld. NFAC on 27/01/2023, 31/01/2023 & 27/01/2023 and the appellant [as stated in Form No 36] has confirmed to have communicated/served them to it on the even date. The separate appeals against such impugned orders are instituted u/s 253(1) of the Act on 11/06/2025 [date on receipt of appeal by the Registry]. Therefore the registry endorsed a delay of 803 days in all these appeals. The appellant however claimed to have instituted these three appeals on 10/06/2025, therefore computed & admitted to have filed the present bunch of appeals with a delay of 802 days from the expiry of period of limitation in terms of pre-amended provision of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act. 12. In terms of pre-amended provisions of s/s (3) of section 253 of the Act, every appeal u/s 253(1) or 253(2) of the Act before the Appellate Tribunal is required to be filed 'within sixty days of the date on which order sought be appealed is communicated to the assessee'. W.e.f. 01/10/2024 the period of limitation rationally amended from sixty days to a period of 'two months from the end of the m....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ude of a party relating to its negligence cannot be given a total go-bye in the name of liberal approach. (d) If the explanation offered is concocted or grounds urged in the applications are fanciful, the Courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (e) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, misrepresentation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of the law of limitation. (f) An application for condonation of delay should be drafted with careful concern and not in a haphazard manner harbouring notion that Courts are required to condone delay on bedrock of principle that adjudication of lis on merits is seminal to justice dispensation system; (g) The increasing tendency to perceive the delay as a non- serious matter and hence lackadaisical propensity can be exhibited in a nonchalant manner requires to be curbed, of course, with legal parameters. (Emphasis supplied) 16. First thing first, as we already noted from the appeal memos that, while instituting these three appeals the appellant by subscribing the verification have already confirmed that the impugne....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....as to what was the "sufficient cause" which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bona fide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this Court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamount to showing utter disregard to the legislature". (Emphasis supplied) Reason/cause behind delay 19. It is trite law that, the burden is on the party claiming a condonation of delay to place before the authority, in clear & explicit terms, all facts on which party relies, so that the appellate authority/court after heari....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....cause' rather much less cause in preventing the appellant from approaching the Tribunal s/s (1) r.w.s. (5) of section 253 of the Act. In effect, the later reason advanced by the appellant on the other hand in our mindful consideration suggests that it was steeply designed to grossly do-away with explaining true reason/cause (exist if any). 21. Insofar as the delay in instituting the present appeal is concerned, a careful contemplation of records reveals us that, there is neither any plausible explanation nor any whisper in the entire narration of facts about a single step taken by the appellant to showcase required seriousness, and not even a bonafied affirmation that delay was accidental. We also observed that, neither through such affidavits nor by any other document/petition or application the appellant could demonstrate that there was a 'sufficient cause' or 'sufficient reason' behind the substantial, inordinate & immoderate delay which prevented it from filing the present appeal within the statutory time limit allowed u/s 253(3) of the Act. In the event the lifeline embedded in s/s (5) of section 253 of the Act could hardly come to rescue the appellant from rigors of s/s (3....