GOVT HIGH SCHOOL BALLOH, BATHINDA V. INCOME TAX OFFICER ( TDS), BATHINDA

ITA 173/ASR/2023

AI Insights

The case involves the Govt. High School Balloh appealing against the order of the CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre, which dismissed their appeal due to a delay of 1523 days in filing. The appellant argued that the delay was partly due to the COVID-19 pandemic and should be condoned based on the Supreme Court's judgment in In RE: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation. However, the CIT(A) and the Tribunal found the delay inordinate and without sufficient cause, citing various precedents that emphasize the importance of adhering to statutory limitation periods to prevent prejudice to the revenue and ensure judicial discipline.

• Counselvise Citation: [2023] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 114397 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 22 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-07-2023
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 09-07-2023
• Assessment Year: 2015-2016
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2023
• Other Referred Cases: In RE: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation reported at 441 ITR 722 (SC), CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra, JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., ITO V. Hemraj Onkarji Mali, Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT, T.N.M. BANK LTD. v. APP. AUTY., SHOPS ACT
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Period of limitation; Condonation of delay; TDS

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 173/Asr/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Govt. High School Balloh, VPO Balloh, Teh. Phul, Bathinda [TAN: AMRG 11932E] Vs. CPC TDS/ITO, TDS, Ghaziabad/Bathinda (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. J. K. Gupta, Adv. Respondent by: Smt. Ratinder Kaur, Sr. DR Date of Hearing: 10.07.2023 Date of Pronouncement: 12.07.2023 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi dated 21.04.2023 challenging therein dismissing of the appeal by way of rejecting condonation of delay of 1523 days. ITA No. 173/Asr/2023 Govt. High School Balloh v. ITO 2 2. At the outset, the ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that the ld. CIT(A) has rejected the appeal has been dismissed in limine by rejecting condonation of delay of 1523 days in filing the appeal. The counsel argued that the ld. CIT(A) has not considered the application of condonation of delay submitted along with the written submission and even Covid pandemic period of 320 days has not been excluded while counting the delay of period 1523 days which are to be excluded in view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of In RE: Cognizance For Extension of Limitation reported at 441 ITR 722 (SC) in filing the appeal. He pleaded that the matter may be remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) and the matter condoned delay of 1523 days and remand back to the CIT(A) adjudicating the matter, appeal on merits of the case. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR submitted that there was no ordinary delay of 1532 days in filing the appeal by the appellant. He contended that in view of the general principles of law that law is made to protect only diligent and vigilant people and that equity aids and the vigilant and not the indolent. Law will not protect people who are careless about the rights. He argued that the ld. CIT(A) has discussed the provisions of law on condonation of delay partly good and sufficient reason for delay to be admitted u/s 249(3) ITA No. 173/Asr/2023 Govt. High School Balloh v. ITO 3 of the IT Act, 1961. The ld. CIT(A) has interpreted sufficient cause v. advancing cause of substantial justice, period in delay cannot be ignored out of hand. He discussed that such a long delay will cause with great prejudice to Revenue. The ld. DR contended that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra and various other decisions while giving sufficient and good reasons for rejecting the condonation of delay. He pleaded that the order of the ld. CIT(A) may be upheld. 4. We have heard the rival contention, perused the material on record and the impugned order passed by the ld. CIT(A). The relevant para 6.4 & 6.5 of the ld. CIT(A) has reproduced for a ready reference: “6.4 I find that delay of 1523 days is an inordinate delay. A pragmatic approach can be espoused when delay is short. While interpreting ‘sufficient cause' vs. advancing cause of 'substantial justice’, period of delay can not to be ignored out of hand. Such a long delay will also cause grave prejudice to revenue. State as a party to this litigation need to be given equal treatment. Decision of Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra is relevant, which reads as under: “The provisions relating to prescription of limitation in every statute must not be construed so liberally that it would have the effect of taking away the benefit accruing othe other party in a mechanical manner. Where the Legislature spells out a period of limitation and provides for power to condone the delay as well, then such delay can be condoned only for sufficient and good reasons supported by cogent and proper evidence.” ITA No. 173/Asr/2023 Govt. High School Balloh v. ITO 4 Now, it is a settled principle of law that provisions relating to specified period of limitation must be applied with their rigour and effective consequences. In case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd., [2007] 104 ITD 149 (Chennai)(TM) delay was not condoned by the Hon’ble ITAT as it was due to negligence and inaction on part of appellant which could have very well be avoided by exercise of due care and attention. Hon’ble ITAT in the case of ITO V. Hemraj Onkarji Mali, [2009] 311 ITR (AT) 416 (Indore) decided that there was no reasonable cause for delay on part of revenue. A conscious decision had been taken by senior officer of the rank of Commissioner not to file appeal. No proper steps were shown to establish that cause was beyond reasonable doubt for delay. In the case of Madhu Dadha Vs. ACIT, [2009] 317 ITR 458 (Mad.) Court while dismissing appeal noticed that assessee had not explained cause of delay in filing appeal. It held as under 14. At this juncture, we have to be guided by the judgment reported in [1990] 1 LLN 457 in the case of T.N.M. BANK LTD. v. APP. AUTY., SHOPS ACT. In that particular case, the Division Bench of this court has held that, “........ We are of the view that the question of limitation is not merely a technical consideration. Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound policy and principles of equity. Is a litigant liable to have a Damocles' sword hanging over his head indefinitely for a period to be determined at the whims and fancies of the opponent?” In that decision, this Court has held that the delay of 285 days in preferring the appeal could not be condoned. It was held that the condonation of delay was not justified on facts and evidence of the case. As rightly pointed out that the Rules of limitation are based on principles of sound public policy and principles of equity. Though there is no presumption that the delay is occasioned deliberately or on account of culpable negligence, if the admitted facts in that case are taken note of, there is no doubt that the delay on the part of the appellant is deliberate and the appellant is clearly guilty of culpable negligence. Such negligent attitude of the appellant was not taken care to preserve the right of appeal and having been slept over for more than 558 days and not explained the delay ITA No. 173/Asr/2023 Govt. High School Balloh v. ITO 5 without any reasonable doubt, the appellant cannot avail sympathy or discretion of this Court. 15. In any way of the matter, the discretion having been rightly refused by the Tribunal, there is no sufficient reason or cause to interfere with the order passed by the Tribunal. Hence, the appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected TAMP is also dismissed." 6.5. In view of the aforesaid legal discussion and observations, I believe in the present case, cause of substantial justice would not be served by condoning inordinate delay of 1523 days. Therefore, appeal to be dismissed in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a).” 5. From the record, it evident that the ld. CIT(A) has interpreted sufficient cause viz~a~viz advancing cause of substantial justice, while holding the period of inordinate delay of 1523 days cannot be ignored out of hand. Even if, in view of the Apex Court Judgement, (Supra) we exclude the covid period of 320 days out of the total delay of 1523 days, the net delay of 1203 days (i.e. more than 3 years) without giving any bonafide reasons by the appellant, would be liable to be dismissed under the provisions of limitation Act. The Ld. CIT(A) has discussed that such a long delay has caused great prejudice to Revenue. We appreciate that the ld. CIT(A) has followed the jurisdictional High Court in the case of CIT v. Ram Mohan Kabra and various other decisions while giving sufficient and good reasons for rejecting the condonation of delay as per the mandate. In the ITA No. 173/Asr/2023 Govt. High School Balloh v. ITO 6 above view, we find no infirmity or perversity in the order of the Ld. CIT(A) to the facts on record, in dismissing the appeal in limine in view of provision of section 249 (3) of Income Tax Act, 1961 read with Faceless Appeal Scheme 2021 Paragraph 5(1)(ii)(a). Accordingly, the order of the Ld. CIT(A) is upheld. 6. Before parting with, we make it clear that we reframe to adjudicate the grounds of appeal on merits, as the appeal of the assesse is no maintainable under the law of limitation Act, as discussed above. 7. In the backdrop of the aforesaid discussion, the appeal of the assesse is disposed of in terms indicated as above. Order pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2023 Sd/- Sd/- (Anikesh Banerjee) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS*/DOC* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1) The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT(Appeals) (4) The CIT concerned (5) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order