ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA V. .DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

ITA 292/CHANDI/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Allahabad Bank, now Indian Bank, which appealed against the order of the CIT (Appeals) confirming a demand of Rs. 4,76,709 under sections 201 and 201A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The Assessee challenged the legality, validity, and propriety of the impugned order, citing reasons such as the wrongful application of the law and the failure to consider the reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found the Assessee's reasons for the delay justifiable and directed a re-examination of the case on its merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 469602 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-12-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Other Referred Cases: Satbarg Singh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2 (3), Chandigarh, Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHAKTI SINGH
• Assessee Lawyers: U.S. AGGARWAL; MANUJ BANSAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Additional evidence; Reasonable cause; TDS
• Section: 250; 13

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलȣय अͬधकरण,चÖडीगढ़ Ûयायपीठ, चÖडीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH, ‘A’, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ ITA No. 292/CHD/2024 Ǔनधा[रण वष[ / Assessment Year: 2015-16 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank SCO 12A, Sector 11, Panchkula Vs. बनाम The DCIT (TDS Circle), Panchkula èथायी लेखा सं./PAN No: RTKA02368C अपीलाथȸ/ ASSESSEE Ĥ×यथȸ/ REPSONDENT ( Physical Hearing ) Ǔनधा[ǐरती कȧ ओर से/Assessee by : Shri U.S. Aggarwal, Advocate & Shri Manuj Bansal, CA राजèव कȧ ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Shakti Singh, JCIT Sr. DR सुनवाई कȧ तारȣख/Date of Hearing : 19.11.2024 उदघोषणा कȧ तारȣख/Date of Pronouncement : 16.12.2024 आदेश/Order Per Paresh M. Joshi, JM : This is an appeal filed by the Assessee u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as ‘the Act’] before this Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1060950534(1) dated 15.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act which is herein after referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 2 2015-16 and the corresponding previous period is from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015. 2. That following grounds are urged in Form 36 to challenge the legality, validity and proprietary of the impugned order before us:- 1. That the learned Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts of the case in making and confirming demand of Rs. 4,76,709/- made u/s 201, 201A of I.T Act. That the order passed by learned CIT Appeals confirming the unwarranted demand is totally wrong, illegal and excessive in nature. 2. That the learned Authorities below have erred in law in making said demand by wrongly applying provision of section 201, 201A of I.T Act, Though totally ignoring the fact that the appellant was prevented by reasonable and sufficient cause to file appeal within time. Thus the appellant order passed by CIT (Appeals) is totally wrong, illegal and unjustified. 3. That the various case laws relied upon by Ld. CIT (Appeals) are not applicable as facts of the cases are different facts than of appellant are different. 4. The appellant has produced Form No. 15G/15H and reasons for not deducting TDS/Short deduction of TDS. 5. That Ld. CIT(Appeals) has failed to establish that thus order passed totally delay in filing appeal is intentional and wrong and illegal casual approach of appellant. Thus order passed by CIT(A) ignoring correct facts and reasonable cause is totally wrong and illegal. 6. That the order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is not a speaking and reasoned order rejecting the appeal on 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 3 technical default in a stereotype manner which is totally wrong, illegal and excessive in nature. 7. That the learned CIT (Appeals), has passed said order against settled principals of law and has not given any explanation why he is confirming the said demand without discussing heist of income, Thus the order passed by learned CIT (Appeals) is totally wrong, illegal and against the law. 8. That the appellant craves leave to add, delete, alter or amend any of the above ground/grounds of appeal before 3. The hearing in the matter took place before us on 19.11.2024 when the ld. AR for and on behalf of the Assessee bank appeared and placed on record a paper book containing pages from 1 to 81 and a written submission. It was contended by him that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 444 days in preferring first appeal u/s 246A of the Act as u/s 249(3) of the Act Assessee bank had established sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay. The original assessment order is dated 15.3.2022 wherein an amount of Rs. 4,76,709/- was assessed and demanded. The Assessee bank was aggrieved of this order and preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 17.07.2023. The demand notice on the Assessee was served on 28.3.2022 and hence appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.4.2022. In column No.15 of Form 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 4 No.35 which is form of appeal to be filed before CIT(A).Tthe Assessee had stated in column No. 15 as under;- \"It is humbly submitted that due to bank merger, assessee did not have access to TRACES portal and physical notices were not received at branch address. Further, due to time constraint and on-going audit in Indian Bank (Panchkula) Branch, assessee branch was not able to file Appeal to Learned CIT(A) within time prescribed in the Act therefore it is requested to you please condone the delay in fling the Appeal. Further, Form 35 was already fled Ack No. 615409770120522 dated 12.05.2022 However, AY was wrongly captured as AY 14-15 instead of AY 15- 16 and hence re-submitting now for kind perusal pl’.” 4. The ld. CIT(A) in the impugned order has held as under:- “4.1 I have gone through the facts of the case. As per the provisions of section 249(3) of the Act, there should be sufficient cause for the appellant for not presenting the appeal within the time allowed. The relevant provisions read as under: \"The CIT(A) 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\". Under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on good and sufficient reason for the delay being shown, admit an Appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation. 4.2 On the issue of delay in filing the appeal, the reason given by the appellant is lack of availability of time, ongoing audit and lack of access to TRACES . The appellant had received the order on 28th March 2022 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 5 as per form 35. Therefore, appellant not having access to TRACES system and not having access to physical service of notices explained the delay of 13 days between the date of service of order and date of order. However, the delay of further 444 days from the date of service of notice to the date of filing of appeal is attributed by the appellant to the lack of availability of time and ongoing audit. However, this shows that the appellant was casual in attitude. Appellant had also mentioned wrong FY and AY while filing form 35 which also reflects its casual attitude. 4.3 In the case of Satbarg Singh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2 (3), Chandigarh [2015] 61 taxmann.com 46 (Chandigarh - Trib.), it was held that in condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. 4.4 In the instant case, the reason given by the appellant appears to be a lame excuse. Thus, the cause as explained by the appellant doesn't appear to be reasonable and sufficient. The language used in section 249(3) is \"sufficient cause\" and not \"reasonable cause\". 'Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then any one can take this plea. It has already been discussed above that for qualifying u/s 249(3) for condonation of delay, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along with taking 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 6 appropriate steps and if he appears to be guilty of lapses or negligence, then he must be prepared to have his remedy barred without expecting condonation. 4.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant had acted or/ and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it cannot qualify as sufficient ground allowing the court to exercise discretion in favour of such a party. We are further of the view that condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. \"Sufficient Cause\" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributing to the party. 4.6 On the basis of the circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant was not having \"sufficient cause\" for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is held to be invalid and non-maintainable being out of time. For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as DISMISSED in-limine. 5. In the result, the appellant's appeal is DISMISSED.” 5. Per contra ld. DR has no objection if delay is condoned and matter be set aside to the file of CIT(A) to pass order afresh on merits and so 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 7 also to examine additional evidence for which the Assessee has filed an application dated 12.5.2022 before ld. CIT(A). 6. We have examined the papers and material placed on record. After taking into consideration submissions of ld. AR and and DR we are of the considered view that cause shown (supra) in column No. 15 is justifiable. We condone the delaying in filing the first appeal and direct ld. CIT(A) to pass a speaking order on merits after taking into consideration the Assessee application under Rule 46A as per law. 7. In the result, impugned order is set aside. We remand the matter back to the file of CIT(A) to pass a speaking and reasoned order on merits of the case. 8. Appeal of Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced on 16.12.2024. Sd/- Sd/- ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) Accountant Member (PARESH M. JOSHI) Judicial Member “rkk” आदेश कȧ ĤǓतͧलͪप अĒेͪषत / Copy of the order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथȸ/ The Assessee 2. Ĥ×यथȸ/ The Respondent 3. आयकर आयुÈत/ CIT 4. ͪवभागीय ĤǓतǓनͬध, आयकर अपीलȣय आͬधकरण, चÖडीगढ़/ DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 5. गाड[ फाईल/ Guard File आदेशानुसार/ By order, सहायक पंजीकार/ Assistant Registrar "