DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY, DHAMTARI,DHAMTARI V. INCOME TAX OFFICER(TDS), RAIPUR, RAIPUR

ITA 286/RPR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves the District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari, which appealed against the orders of the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur, concerning non-deduction of TDS on professional/technical fees paid to Private Vocational Training Providers. The initial order was issued under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, imposing a demand of Rs. 19,15,609. The appeal to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) was dismissed due to being time-barred, as it was filed more than three years after the due date. The Tribunal upheld this dismissal, emphasizing the lack of sufficient cause for the delay and the appellant's failure to act with reasonable diligence.

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 299020 (ITAT-RAIPUR)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-10-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 16-10-2024
• Assessment Year: 2018-2019
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2024
• Other Referred Cases: Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), Baldeo Lai Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104), M Loganathan Vs CIT (Madras 302 IT R 139), Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya Vs ITO (ITA No. 64/Srt/2023), Ramlal and others Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR 1962 SC 361), Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd (ITAT Chennai 104 ITD 149), Madhu Dadha (Madras 317 ITR 458), Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006] 98 ITD 200, T.Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [1994] 48 ITD 543 (AHD.), AsiBai v. Gomathi AIR 1979 Mad. 115 at page 116, Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 364, Sitaram Ramchandra v. M.N. Nagrashana AIR 1960 SC 260, 265, 266, Mrs.Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537, Andal Sweet Stall & Tippo Dining Hall v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 551
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRIYANKA PATEL
• Assessee Lawyers: NITIN AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Reasonable cause; Period of limitation; Principle of natural justice; TDS; Time period of passing order
• Section: 250; 201; 48; 201(1)

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर Ɋायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR ŵी रिवश सूद, Ɋाियक सद˟ एवं ŵी अŜण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद˟ क े समƗ । BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM (आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 286/RPR/2024) (िनधा[रण वष[ Assessment Year: 2018-19) District Project Livelihood College Society, Near Civil Court, Rudri, Dhamtri, C.G., 493773 V s Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur TAN: JBPD03960F (अपीलाथŎ/Appellant) . . (ŮȑथŎ / Respondent) िनधाŊįरती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Nitin Agrawal, CA राजˢ की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 16.10.2024 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 22.10.2024 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), ADDL/JCIT (A)-1, Vadodara [in short, “CIT(A)”], passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short, ‘the IT Act’) for the AY 2018-19 dated 13.02.2024, which in turn arises from the order of the Income Tax Officer (TDS), Raipur passed u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the IT Act, dated 31.10.2019. 2 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in the present appeal are extracted as under: 1. Ground I - Invalidity of Initial Order Due to Non-compliance with DIN Requirements: The initial order issued was void as it did not include a DIN, contravening CBDT Circular No. 19/2019, which is a mandatory requirement for the validity of such communications. 2. Ground Il - Erroneous Dismissal on Procedural Grounds: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred by dismissing the appeal based on the timing of the filing, ignoring the acceptance and substantial compliance by the Appellant during the appeal process. 3. Ground Ill - Infringement on the Principles of Natural Justice: The decision to dismiss the appeal without considering the merits of the case and based on a procedurally defective initial order infringes upon the principles of natural justice. 4. Ground IV - Impact of COVID-19 Pandemic: The delay in filing the appeal was a direct result of the COVID-19 pandemic, a recognized national emergency that disrupted all judicial and administrative processes, as acknowledged by various legal notifications and the Supreme Court of India. 5. Ground V - Failure to Consider Merits: The learned Commissioner has failed to adjudicate on the substantive correctness of the tax demand, which is fundamentally against the principles of natural justice. 6. Ground VI -Abuse of Discretionary Powers: The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in dismissing the appeal solely on procedural grounds of delay, ignoring the extraordinary circumstances presented by the appellant which were beyond its control, including the initial procedural irregularities. 7. Ground No. VII- Non-Consideration of Compliance Efforts: The Appellant has made every effort to comply with procedural requirements post- acknowledgment of the appeal, demonstrating good faith and an intention to resolve the matter lawfully, which has not been appropriately considered. 3 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 3. Brief facts of the case are that the assessee herein is an authority for imparting Skill Development in the name and style of “District Project livelihood College Society, Dhamtari” at District level of the Chhattisgarh State Development Authority, Raipur. The objects of the Authority are to impart Skill Development Training Program to youth of State through the registered Government and Private Vocational Training Providers (now herein after referred to as VTP’s), so that the youth could be able to get a suitable job for livelihood. A survey was conducted on the assessee u/s 133A(2A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on 28.01.2019. During the Course of Survey action, certain discrepancies regarding non-deduction of TDS on professional/ technical fee paid to Private Vocational Training Providers. The appellant was not obtained his TAN as on the date of survey. Order u/s section 201(1) and 201(1A) passed on 31.10.2019 are imposing and raising demand of Rs. 19,15,609/-. 4. Aggrieved with the aforesaid order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act dated 31.10.2019 by the ITO (TDS), Raipur. The assessee had filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), however, the appeal of the assessee being barred by limitation for more than 3 years has been dismissed on count itself. On this issue, Ld. CIT(A) have decided the appeal of the assessee as not maintainable 4 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur therefore, dismissed the same as per provisions of section 249(2) r.w.s. 249(3) of the Act, with the following decision / observations: 7. Decision: 7.1 At the outset, it is observed that there is delay in filing of appeal. As per clause (2) section 249 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, an appeal made to the Commissioner (Appeals) shall be presented within thirty days of the date of service of the notice of demand relating to the assessment or penalty, where the appeal relates to any assessment or penalty. As per details mentioned in Order u/s 201(1) & 201 (1A) of the Act and Form 35, it is noticed that order u/s 201(1) & 201 (1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, that is order under appeal, was passed by the AO on 31.10.2019. The same was served on the appellant on 23.12.2019. Therefore, the due date for filing of appeal was 23.01.2020. However, the appeal has only been filed on 02.03.2023. Thus, the appeal is delayed by more than 3 years. 7.2 Now coming to the delay in filing of appeal, Section 249(3) of the IT Act, 1961 deals with condonation of delay in filing appeal. The section states that “Commissioner Appeals may admit an appeal after expiration of the said period if he is satisfied that the appellant had sufficient cause for not presenting it within that period” Thus, it is clear that appellant should have sufficient cause for not filing the appeal in time and CIT Appeals need to be satisfied regarding the cause being sufficient. 7.3 In the case of appellant, there is delay of more than 3 years in filing the appeal. The appellant requested to condone the same. The appellant vide point no. 2 had taken the plea of nationwide lockdown from March 2020 to August 2021. And the appellant was not able to file appeal. In this regard, it is to state that in view of the Hon'ble Supreme Court decision vide MA No. 21 of 2022 in MA No. 665 of 2021 in Suo Moto Writ Petition (C) No. 3 of 2020 dated 10.01.2022, the period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 shall stand excluded for the purpose of limitation as may be prescribed under any general or special laws in respect of ail judicial or quasi-judicial proceedings due to the outbreak of the COVID-19 pandemic. However in this case, the order u/s 201(1) & 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, was passed by the AO on 31.10.2019. The same was stated to be served on the appellant on 23.12.2019. Therefore, the due date for filing of appeal was 23.01.2020. This is a period prior to lockdown. Hence, the plea taken by the 5 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur appellant is not justified. Since the appellant has not submitted proper justification for condonation of delay in filing the appeal, it is evident that appellant had no cause for not filing the appeal in time. Further the appellant mentioned that during the period under consideration (i.e., Dec 2019 to March 2023) Six Jila Panchayat CEO and Five collectors were transferred from the district of the appellant which was the reason behind the delay in appointment of consultant. In absence of specific reasons regarding delay in filing appeal during the relevant period, it cannot be presumed that there was reasonable and sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal. 7.4 In the case of Baroda Rayon Corporation Ltd (Gujarat 87 STC 266), Baldeo Lai Roy Vs State of Bihar (Patna 11 STC 104) and M Loganathan Vs CIT (Madras 302 IT R 139) it has been held that appellate authority needs to look into the fact that whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in the prosecuting of appeal. In the present case I do not think that the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence. 7.5 In the case of Nileshkumar Chhaganbhai Vasoya Vs ITO, (ITA No. 64/Srt/2023) the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Surat addressed the issue of condoning the delay in filing an appeal. The appellant was seeking relief for a delay of 244 days due to being a common man unfamiliar with tax proceedings. However, the ITAT held that the legal illiteracy of a common man cannot be an excuse and refused to condone the delay. The ruling underscores the importance of adhering to legal timelines and the responsibility of individuals to seek appropriate advice when engaging in legal proceedings. It also underlines the principle that ignorance or illiteracy of the law is not an excuse. 7.6 In the case of Ramlal and others Vs Rewa Coalfields Ltd (AIR 1962 SC 361), Tractors and Farm Equipments Ltd (ITAT Chennai 104 ITD 149) and Madhu Dadha (Madras 317 ITR 458) it has been held that party has to show reason for delay on the last date of limitation period and thereafter for each day. Further, condonation of delay is not a matter of right. Court has to exercise the discretionary Jurisdiction. 7.7 In the case of Sri Venkatesa Paper & Boards Ltd. [2006] 98 ITD 200, Hon'ble ITAT Chennai held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay, appellate authority must be satisfied that there had been diligence on part of appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. It is further held that sufficient cause within contemplation of provisions of section 249(3) must be a cause which is beyond 6 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur control of party invoking aid of provisions. In the case of T.Kishan [2012] 23 taxmann.com 383, Hon'ble I TAT Hyderabad has held that in granting indulgence and condoning delay in filing appeal, it must be proved beyond shadow of doubt that assessee was diligent and was not guilty of negligence whatsoever. 7.8 In the case of Prabhudas Kishoredas Tobacco Products P. Ltd. v. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, [1994] 48 ITD 543 (AHD.), it has been held that it is a settled law that in order to get the delay condoned or excused in pursuing the remedies available to the appellant under the direct tax laws, the appellant has to' explain the delay to the satisfaction of the Tribunal. In deciding what is sufficient cause for delay in filing the appeal, the true guide is whether the appellant has acted with reasonable diligence in prosecution of his appeal (AsiBai v. Gomathi AIR 1979 Mad. 115 at page 116). As laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361, 364, in the case of Sitaram Ramchandra v. M.N. Nagrashana AIR 1960 SC 260, 265, 266 and in the case of Mrs.Sandhya Rani Sarkar v. Smt. Sudha Rani Debi AIR 1978 SC 537, the appellant has to show sufficient cause for not filing the appeal on the last date of the limitation and must explain the delay made thereafter day by day till the actual date of the filing of the appeal. In other words, the whole of the delay must be explained. The Madras High Court in the case of Andal Sweet Stall & Tippo Dining Hall v. State of Tamil Nadu [1981] 48 STC 551 have laid down that a judgment or pronouncement by a court long after the period of limitation cannot be taken advantage for filing of appeal with a petition to excuse the delay in filing the appeal. It is true that the parties are entitled to wait until the last date of the limitation for filing of the appeal, but when it allows the limitation to expire and come forward with an explanation enumerating reasonable causes for not filing the appeal within the time prescribed under the statute, then the causes so shown must establish that because of some event or circumstances arising before limitation expired, she/it was not able to file the appeal within the stipulated time mandated in law. Any event, cause or circumstance arising after the expiry of the limitation period cannot constitute a sufficient cause. There may be events or circumstances subsequent to the expiry of the limitation period which may further delay in filing of the appeal, but the limitation has been allowed to expire when the appeal being filed must be traced to a cause arising within the period of limitation. 7.9 In the present case, appellant has neither mentioned any ground for delay in filing the appeal nor furnished anything to prove that it had acted diligently and was not guilty of negligence. Under these circumstances, as the appeal is filed 7 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur beyond the due date prescribed under law and the reason so mentioned is not justified, therefore delay in filing of appeal is not condoned. In the result, appeal stands dismissed. 7.10 In view of the fact that appeal has been dismissed on the ground of rejection of petition for condonation of delay, merit of the case is not being discussed. 8. In result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed. 5. Again, dissatisfied with the order of Ld. CIT(A), assessee preferred a present appeal which is under consideration before us. 6. At the outset, it is noted that the appeal before us, is also delayed by 54 days, for which explanation have been placed before us by the Ld. AR by way of written petition for condonation of delay along with affidavit signed by the Chartered Accountant, Mr. Nitin Agrawal as in the capacity of Authorized Representative of the appellant. Both these documents are extracted hereunder for the sake of our consideration on the issue of delay involved in filing of the present appeal. 8 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 9 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 10 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 11 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 12 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 13 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 7. Considering the aforesaid fact and explanation furnished by the assessee, which were opposed by the revenue being the delay involved has not been substantiated with any plausible explanation or sufficient cause beyond to control of assessee. 8. We have considered the submission of both the parties and are of the view that in the present case the assessee is a State Government undertaking and the officers of the assessee society were on assignments entrusted upon them, such as parliamentary election duty, year end closing procedures and other procedural delays. As the delay involved herein for 54 days is not an extraordinary delay, therefore, considering the nature of work and administrative constraints of the assessee society, is considered appropriate to condone the delay, so the appeal of the assessee is allowed for adjudication. 9. At the threshold, Ld. AR had reiterated the facts of the case in also the reason for dismissal of assessee’s appeal by Ld. CIT(A) that there was delay of filing of appeal for more than 3 years. It was the submission that Ld. CIT(A) had considered the submissions of the assessee have also elaborated on the facts of the case in his order but had abruptly pick up the issue of delay 14 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur in filing of the appeal and has dismissed the appeal of the assessee without considering the assessee’s contentions and explanations that the delay was occasioned on account of lockdown due to Covid-19 from March 2020 to August 2021, out of which period from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022 was excluded by the order dated 10.01.2022 in suo moto writ petition (C) No. 3/2020 by Hon’ble Supreme Court, thereafter there were transfers of the concerned Authorities, there was also delay in appointment of consultants etc. 10. Backed by aforesaid submissions, it was the prayer by Ld. AR that the matter before the Ld. CIT(A) was not appreciated in right perspective, the same should have been considered on merits and shall not be dismissed on the count of delay itself. It is the submission that the interest of justice the matter may please be restored back to the files of Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. 11. Ld. Sr. DR on the other hand vehemently supported the order of Ld. CIT(A) and argued that the appellate order by the Ld. CIT(A) was served on the assessee on 23.12.2019 and the due date of filing of appeal before the first appellate authority was 23.01.2020. She further mentioned that the 15 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur appeal was to be filed prior to initiation of the outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic effective from 15.03.2021, however, was filed on 02.03.2023 i.e., after more than 3 years. Assessee’s contentions may not be accepted as the appeal in present case was to be filed even prior to the start of breakdown because of Covid-19. Even if assessee’s contention is considered in terms of Hon’ble Apex Courts decision to extent the limitation up to 28.02.2022 + 3 months, still the assessee’s careless approach remain continue for more than one year, therefore, Ld. CIT(A) had rightly dismissed the appeal of the assessee in absence of any justifiable reasons beyond the control of assessee on account of which the delay had resulted. In view of such assertions, it was the prayer that the order of Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be upheld. 12. We have considered the rival submissions, perused the material available on record and case laws pressed before us for our consideration. Admittedly, the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed with a delay of more than 3 years. The assessee was supposed to file the appeal on or before 23.01.2020, however, the assessee could furnish the same on 02.03.2023. Admittedly, the order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) dated 31.10.2019 was served to the assessee on 23.12.2019, the assessee was required to file the appeal on or before 23.01.2020, the Covid-Pandemic was declared effective from 15.03.2020, the assessee was having sufficient time to file the appeal prior 16 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur to lockdown. It is to be observed that even after the lockdown was lifted, the assessee remains non-attentive. The reasons offered that there were transfers of the officers, delay in appointment of consultants and other administrative constraints cannot be considered to be reasonable and sufficient cause in filing of the appeal. 13. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered view that the Ld. CIT(A) had rightly exercised the provisions of section 249(2) r.w. 249(3) a/w various judicial pronouncements while deciding the appeal of the assessee in absence of any reasonable justification substantiating the sufficient cause for delay beyond the control of assessee in filing of the appeal. We, thus, dehors any infirmity in the order of Ld. CIT(A), concur with the same. 14. In result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations. Order pronounced in the open court on 22/10/2024. Sd/- (RAVISH SOOD) S Sd/-d/- (ARUN KHODPIA) Ɋाियक सद˟ / JUDICIAL MEMBER लेखा सद˟ / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER रायपुर/Raipur; िदनांक Dated 22/10/2024 Vaibhav Shrivastav 17 ITA No. 286/RPR/2024 District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari Vs Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur आदेश की Ůितिलिप अŤेिषत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : // स×याǒपत Ĥित True copy // आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER, //True copy// (Senior Private Secretary) आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ITAT, Raipur 1. अपीलाथŎ / The Appellant- District Project Livelihood College Society, Dhamtari 2. ŮȑथŎ / The Respondent- Income Tax Officer(TDS), Raipur 3. आयकर आयुƅ(अपील) / The CIT(A), 4. The Pr. CIT -1, Raipur, (C.G.) 5. िवभागीय Ůितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर/ DR, ITAT, Raipur 6. गाडŊ फाईल / Guard file. "