CANARA BANK, MARGAO BRANCH,MARGAO V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, PANAJI

ITA 342/PAN/2025

AI Insights

Canara Bank filed appeals against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2017-18 and 2018-19, which confirmed the demands raised under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act for non-deduction and non-deposit of TDS. The ITAT noted a delay in filing the appeals, which was supported by a notarized affidavit and email correspondences, and found sufficient cause for condonation of delay. The Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had not adequately considered the submissions and evidence provided by the assessee, leading to a decision to remit the matter back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 846105 (ITAT-PANAJI)
• Duration Of Justice: 5 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-03-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: Panaji
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 11-10-2025
• Other Referred Cases: B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy, Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RIJULA UNIYAL
• Assessee Lawyers: S. ANANTHAN; LALITHA RAMESWARAN
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Reasonable cause; Corroborative evidences; Principle of natural justice; TDS

Judgement Text

" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJI BENCH PANAJI BEFORE SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI GD PADMAHSHALI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I T A. Nos.342 & 343/PAN/2025 (A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19) Canara Bank, Kamat House, Luis Miranda Road, Margao-403601, Goa. Vs. JCIT-TDS, Pundalik Niwas, Rua-De-Qurem, Cortim,Panaji, Goa-403001 PAN.NO.AAACC6106G (अपीलार्थी/Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent) Appellant by Shri.S.Ananthan & Smt.Lalitha Rameswaran.AR Respondent by Smt.Rijula Uniyal Sr.DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing 26.03.2026 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement 27.03.2026 ORDER PER PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM: These two appeals are filed by the assesse against the separate orders of the ADDL/CIT(A)-2,Gurugram passed u/sec201 and u/ 250 of the Act for A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19. 2. Since issues involved in these appeals are common and identical, hence they are clubbed, heard and a Printed from counselvise.com 2 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up ITA No.342/PAN/2025, A.Y 2017-18 as a lead case and facts narrated. The assessee has raised the grounds of appeal challenging the order of the CIT(A) sustaining the demand u/sec 201(1)&201(1A) of the Act determined by the Assessing Officer(TDS). 3. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR of the Assessee submitted that there is a delay of 135 days in filing the appeals before the Hon’ble Tribunal. The Assesse has filed affidavit for A.Y.2017-18 & A.Y.2018-19 substantiating the facts and reasonable cause for condonation of delay and hence it is considered appropriate to refer to the notarised affidavit of the assessee read as under: Printed from counselvise.com 3 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. 4. The Ld.AR substantiated the sufficient cause with the email correspondences of the Head office and Branch offices referred in the affidavit and the dealy was not an wanted Act and un intentional. Hence considering the facts, provisions and the contents of the affidavit found that there is a reasonable cause explained and there is no benefit is derived in causing delay in filing appeals before the Honble Tribunal. 5. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in B. Madhuri Goud v. B. Damodar Reddy (2012) 12 SCC 693, has held that the following principles must be kept in mind while considering the application for condonation of delay; (i) There should be a liberal, pragmatic, justice oriented, non-pedantic approach while dealing with an application for condonation of delay, for the courts are not supposed to legalise injustice but are obliged to remove injustice. (ii) The terms “sufficient cause” should be understood in their proper spirit, philosophy and purpose regard being had to the fact that these terms are basically elastic and are to be applied in proper perspective to the obtaining fact-situation. (iii) Substantial justice being paramount and pivotal the technical considerations should not be given undue and uncalled for emphasis. (iv) No presumption can be attached to deliberate cause of delay but, gross negligence on the part of the counsel or litigant is to be taken note of. (v) Lack of bona fides imputable to a party seeking condonation of delay is a significant and relevant fact. Printed from counselvise.com 4 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. (vi) It is to be kept in mind that adherence to strict proof should not affect public justice and cause public mischief because the courts are required to be vigilant so that in the ultimate eventuate there is no real failure of justice. (vii) The concept of liberal approach has to encapsulate the conception of reasonableness and it cannot be allowed a totally unfettered free play. (viii)There is a distinction between inordinate delay and a delay of short duration or few days, for to the former doctrine of prejudice is attracted whereas to the latter it may not be attracted. That apart, the first one warrants strict approach whereas the second calls for a liberal delineation. (ix) The conduct, behaviour and attitude of a party relating to its inaction or negligence are relevant factors to be taken into consideration. It is so as the fundamental principle is that the courts are required to weigh the scale of balance of justice in respect of both parties and the said principle cannot be given a total go by in the name of liberal approach. (x) If the explanation offered is concocted or the grounds urged in the application are fanciful, the courts should be vigilant not to expose the other side unnecessarily to face such litigation. (xi) It is to be borne in mind that no one gets away with fraud, is representation or interpolation by taking recourse to the technicalities of law of limitation. (xii) The entire gamut of facts are to be carefully scrutinized and the approach should be based on the paradigm of judicial discretion which is founded on objective reasoning and not on individual perception. (xiii) The State or a public body or an entity representing a collective cause should be given some acceptable latitude.” Printed from counselvise.com 5 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. 6. The Hon'ble supreme court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs. MST Katiji & others (167 ITR 471) (SC) has observed as under : “ The legislature has conferred the power to condone delay by enacting s. 5 of the Limitation Act of 1963 in order to enable the Courts to do substantial justice to parties by disposing of matters on \"merits\". The expression \"sufficient cause\" employed by the legislature is adequately elastic to enable the Courts to apply the law in a meaningful manner which subserves the ends of justice—that being the life- purpose of the existence of the institution of Courts. The doctrine of equality before law demands that all litigants, including the State as a litigant, are accorded the same treatment and the law is administered in an even-handed manner. There is no warrant for according a step-motherly treatment when the \"State\" is the applicant praying for condonation of delay. In fact, experience shows that on account of an impersonal machinery (no one in charge of the matter is directly hit or hurt by the judgment sought to be subjected to appeal) and the inherent bureaucratic methodology imbued with the note-making, file- pushing, and passing-on-the-buck ethos, delay on its part is less difficult to understand though more difficult to approve. In any event, the State which represents the collective cause of the community does not deserve a litigant non grata status. The Courts, therefore, have to be informed of the spirit and philosophy of the provision in the course of the interpretation of the expression \"sufficient cause\". So also the same approach has to be evidenced in its application to matters at hand with the end in view to do even-handed justice on merits in preference to the approach which scuttles a decision on merits.” 7. Therefore, respectfully follow the observations and ratio of the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court and find that the delay in filing the appeals before the Honble Tribunal by the assessee is supported with sufficient cause and a pragmatic approach should be considered for Printed from counselvise.com 6 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. condonation of delay and accordingly the delay is condoned and admit the appeals. 8. The brief facts of the case are that, the assessee bank at Margoa , there was survey proceedings u/sec133A of the Act was conducted on 20-09-2017. The information pertains to TDS matters for F.Y.2016-17&2017-18 was called for by the authorities. The assessee has filed the submissions and details of TDS deducted. The A.O after considering the additional details, has issued show cause notice for non deduction and non deposit of TDS and demand u/sec 201(1)&201(1A) of the Act. The assesse has replied to the show cause notice, but the A.O. has rejected the submissions and passed the order u/sec 201 of the Act determining the demand payable of Rs.69,80,727/- vide order dated 27.09.2023. 9. Aggrieved by the order, the assessee has filed an appeal before the CIT(A), whereas the CIT(A) has considered the grounds of appeal, statement of facts and findings of the AO and has issued notices of hearing and the assessee has filed the details. But the CIT(A) has confirmed the action of the A.O and dismissed the appeal. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed an appeal before the Hon'ble Tribunal. 10. At the time of hearing, the Ld.AR submitted that the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing officer overlooking the information of the proceedings. The Printed from counselvise.com 7 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. Ld.AR mentioned that the CIT(A) has not dealt on the details and evidences filed in the appellate proceedings to substantiate the claims and the Ld.AR emphasized that the assessee has good case on merits with supporting evidences which goes to roots of the case and play a vital role in the decision making and prayed for an opportunity to substantiate before the lower authorities. Per Contra, the Ld. DR relied on the order of the CIT(A). 11. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima-facie the CIT(A) has passed the order considering the fact that there is no proper compliance/submissions in spite of providing adequate opportunity of hearing and the notices were issued. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the opinion that the assesse is not interested in submitting any clarifications on the disputed issues and confirmed the action of the assessing officer and dismissed the assesse appeal. Whereas the assessee has raised grounds of appeal challenging the demand raised u/sec201&201(1A) of the Act and there could be various reasons for non submissions of clarifications and evidences which cannot be overruled. Therefore, considering the facts and principles of natural justice, we shall provide with one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee to substantiate the case with evidences. Accordingly, we set aside the order of the CIT(A) and remit the disputed issues to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate afresh and the assesse should be provided Printed from counselvise.com 8 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. adequate opportunity of hearing and shall cooperate in submitting the information for early disposal of appeal. And the grounds of appeal of the assesse are allowed for statistical purposes. 12. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.343/PAN/2025 (A.Y.2018-19) 13. As the facts and circumstances in this appeal is identical to ITA No.342/PAN/2025 for the A.Y 2017-18 (except variance in figures) and the decision rendered in above paragraphs 11&12 would apply mutatis mutandis for this appeal also. Accordingly, the grounds of appeal of the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. 14. In the result, the two appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2026. Sd/- Sd/- (GD PADMAHSHALI) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Panaji, Dated: 27/03/2026 Copy of the Order forwarded to: 1. The Appellant, Printed from counselvise.com 9 ITA Nos.342&343/PAN/2025 Canara Bank .Margao. 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A)- 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT 6. Guard file. //True Copy// BY ORDER, (Asstt. Registrar)ITAT, Panaji Date Initial 1. Draft dictated on PS 2. Draft placed before author PS 3. Draft proposed & placed before the second member PS 4. Draft discussed/approved by Second Member. PS 5. Approved Draft comes to the Sr.PS/PS PS 6. Kept for pronouncement on 7. File sent to the Bench Clerk 8. Date on which file goes to the AR 9. Date on which file goes to the Head Clerk. 10. Date of dispatch of Order. 11. Dictation Pad is enclosed Printed from counselvise.com "