TMI Blog2023 (11) TMI 189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... assessee could not adduce sufficient or reasonable cause to justify the inordinate delay. As noted by Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is a regional rural bank and assisted by qualified professionals who simply ignored the statutory notices / orders issued by assessing officer and also various limitations given in the Act for the purpose of filing appeal. The conduct of the assessee shows gross negligence which does not justify the condonation of delay. The various case laws as enumerated by CIT(A) supports this reasoning. It could thus be seen that Ld. CIT(A), in a very detailed manner, considered the condonation plea of the assessee and arrived at a conclusion that there was no reasonable or justifiable cause with the assessee in filing the appeals with such an inordinate delay. Reasons and arguments are very general in nature. Difficulty in compliance or change in concerned offices / professional or the fact that the TIN facilitation centre was far-off could not be a reasonable cause to justify such an inordinate delay. The plea that the assessee was waiting for the outcome of judicial decisions also does not impress us since the assessee s grievance could be redressed only by fi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... er Section 200A for computation and intimation for the payment of fee under Section 234E for TDS returns filed pertaining to period prior to 01.06.2015, the impugned notices for late filing levy shall be quashed considering the amendment in section 200A is effective only from 01-06-2015. GROUND NO 4; Hon'ble High Court Case Law Pronouncing Judgement in Assessee's favour in similar cases (along with Hon'ble Supreme Court Judgement in case of cleavage of opinion between different High Courts) 1. Hon'ble Karnataka high court and Hon'ble Kerala high court decision supports the above grounds and both high courts have held that the amendment in section 200A is effective only from 01-06-2015 and therefore late filing fee u/s 234E cannot be levied for the period prior to 1-6-2015. Also, Hon'ble Gujrat High Court have decided the matter in favour of Department. The Id. CIT(A) has erred and not considered the landmark judgement of Hon'ble Supreme Court of CIT vs. Vegetable Products ltd. 88 ITR 192(SC) CIT Vs. Vatika Township P. Ltd. (2014) 367 ITR 466 (SC) wherein it has been decided by the Apex Court that if there is a cleavage of opinion betwee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 2 1010/Chny/2023 2013-14 15-03-2013 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 3 1011/Chny/2023 2013-14 15-03-2013 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 4 1012/Chny/2023 2013-14 15-03-2013 11-12-2013 23-01-2023 3300 5 1013/Chny/2023 2014-15 11-04-2014 17-04-2017 24-01-2023 2078 6 1014/Chny/2023 2014-15 30-06-2014 03-07-2014 24-01-2023 3097 7 1015/Chny/2023 2014-15 11-04-2014 17-04-2017 24-01-2023 2078 8 1016/Chny/2023 2014-15 30-06-2014 03-07-2014 24-01-2023 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 06-08-2013 12-12-2013 23-01-2023 3299 23 1031/Chny/2023 2015-16 20-04-2015 23-04-2015 23-01-2023 2802 24 1032/Chny/2023 2015-16 20-04-2015 23-04-2015 24-01-2023 2803 25 1033/Chny/2023 2015-16 20-04-2015 04-05-2015 24-01-2023 2792 26 1034/Chny/2023 2013-14 14-02-2014 16-03-2014 23-01-2023 3205 27 1035/Chny/2023 2014-15 26-11-2013 30-01-2014 23-01-2023 3250 28 1036/Chny/2023 2014-15 21-02-2014 16-03-2014 23-01-2023 3205 29 1037/Chn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ssion as our final written submissions. Appellant would like to state that, Hon ble Jurisdictional Chennai ITAT has already given decision on this exact matter in favour of assessee many of times in recent. Few of those cases for ready reference are detailed below: 1. THE CONGREGATION OF THE SISTERS OF THE CROSS OF CHAVANOD VS ACIT CPC DATED 26.10.2022 (ITA NO 807/CHNY/2022) 2. M/S SAM CO V/S ACIT, CPC-TDS DATED 16.08.2022 (ITA NO. 595/CHNY/2021) 3. M/S LAMPMASTER WOLTERS INDIA PVT.LTD V/S ITO (TDS) DATED 29.07.2022 (IT A NO. 590 TO 592/CHNY/2022) 4. M/S DRX REXINE INC V/S ACIT CPC-TDS DATED 24.02.2022 (ITA NO. 351/CHNY/2021) (All Judgments attached in Detailed Written Submission Copy- From page no 64 to 100). Further Appellant would like to rely on the below decisions wherein in all cases it has been held that decision of jurisdictional ITAT is binding on the lower authorities. 1. HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF UOI VS. KAMLAKSHI FINANCE CORPORATION LTD (AIR 1992 SUPREME COURT 711, 712) 55 EL T 433 (S.C) 2. THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN CASE OF KHALID AUTOMOBILES vs. UOI (1995) (4 sec (SUPPL.) 652) 3. HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF B ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he Covid 19 pandemic, the Hon'ble Supreme Court relaxed the period of limitation vide its judgment dated 10.01.2022 [Suo Moto Writ (Civil)No.3 of 2020 along with M.A. No.21 of 2022 and M.A. No.665 of 2021]. The relevant portion of the judgment passed by the Hon'ble SC reads as under: Ill. In cases were limitation would have expired during the period between 15/03/2020 till 28/02/2022, notwithstanding the actual balance period of limitation remaining, all persons shall have a limitation period of 90 days from 01.03.2022.-----. Nonetheless, this relaxation does not apply to the appellant's situation as the delay occurred before the COVID-19 pandemic's impact was felt and the statutory time limit for filing the appeal had already lapsed. Thus, it is evident that the appellant's case does not fall within the scope of the period of limitation extended by the Hon'ble Apex Court. As a consequence, the appellant has utterly failed to furnish or establish or demonstrate 'sufficient cause' for not presenting the appeal within the period of 30 days. This is a case where an appeal is sought to be initiated after an inordinate delay of 3297 days ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... RX REXINE INC VIS ACIT CPC-TDS DATED 24.02.2022 (ITA NO. 351/CHNY/2021) Upon perusing the judgments of the aforementioned case laws rendered by the Hon'ble jurisdictional ITAT, it becomes evident that the sole grievance or the grounds raised in these appeals are pertaining to levy of fees u/s. 234E, rather than addressing the matter of granting relief to the assessee due to the condonation of an inordinate delay in filing the appeal. The observations made during the perusal indicate that the focus of the appeals has primarily been on contesting the imposition of fees under Section 234E. However, it is worth noting that the assessee's should have demonstrated that there existed sufficient cause for inordinate delay in filling appeal. The appellant, a regional rural Bank who is assisted by qualified chartered accountants who simply ignore the statutory notices/orders issued by assessing officer and also various limitations given in the Act for the purpose of filing appeal. The job related to statutory compliances cannot be left like this and same is to be looked after or adequately managed by the management of the Bank who has been made responsible for compliances. The ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... asonableness as it is understood in its general connotation. 26. The law of limitation is a substantive law and has definite consequences on the right and obligation of a party to arise. These principles should be adhered to and applied appropriately depending on the facts and circumstances of a given case. Once a valuable right has accrued in favour of one party as a result of the failure of the other party to explain the delay by showing sufficient cause and its own conduct, it will be unreasonable to take away that right on the mere asking of the applicant, particularly when the delay is directly a result of negligence, default or inaction of that party. Justice must be done to both parties equally. Then alone the ends of justice can be achieved. If a party has been thoroughly negligent in implementing its rights and remedies, it will be equally unfair to deprive the other party of a valuable right that has accrued to it in law as a result of his acting vigilantly. 10. The Courts in the abovementioned cases, highlighted upon the importance introducing the concept of reasonableness while giving the clause sufficient cause a liberal interpretation. In furtheran ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... in the interest of society as a whole, and vigilantibus non dormientibus Jura subveniunt that the law assists those that are vigilant with their rights, and not those that sleep thereupon. The law of limitation in India identifies the need for limiting litigation by striking a balance between the interests of the state and the litigant. 15. In the present case, the appellant has not adduced any reasonable cause which prevented it from filing the appeal within the 30 days' time limit and there is inordinate delay in filing of appeal as pointed out in para 4 above. Unless and until it is demonstrated that there was sufficient cause that prevented the appellant from exercising its legal remedy of filing appeal within that prescribed period of 30 days, the delay thereafter cannot be condoned without there being compelling grounds as advocated by the Hon'ble Courts. 16. From the facts of the case, it is clear that the statutory right to appeal which was vested with the appellant was not exercised within the stipulated time u/s. 249(2). Thus, this clearly is a case of laches and is directly the result of deliberate inaction on the part of the appellant. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ram/al v. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that the cause for the delay in filing the appeal which by due care and attention could have been avoid cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, nor inaction, or want of bona tides can be imputed to the appellant a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clear hands. 21. For these reasons, the claim of the appellant is not acceptable especially when there is an inordinate delay of 3297 days. Moreover, in this case the order u/s 200A of the IT Act has been passed by the AO on 11.12.2013 and the date of service of the order as per appeal memo in Form 35 filed by the appellant is also 14.12.2013. However, appellant has filed the appeal on 23.01.2023. Whereas, the appellant was required to file appeal by 14.01.2014 as prescribed by the provision of the section 249(2) of the IT Act. So the appellant could not successfully demonstrate that there was sufficient cause for not filing the app ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... pliance requirement to Income Tax notices, the notices remain unintentionally unanswered by the Bank. The Ld. AR further submitted that no appeals were preferred against original intimation orders since there was lack of clarity on the issue of levy of late fees u/s 234E. The assessee was informed by its consultants that the levy of late fee u/s 234E was already being challenged in the judicial forums and Bank decided to wait for the outcome of the judicial proceedings. Once the decision in the matter was rendered by different Hon'ble High Courts and Jurisdictional Chennai ITAT, details of late filing levy fee u/s 234E of different branches, was compiled by Head Office and the appeals were filed against the Intimation orders issued u/s 200A. In the said background, Ld. AR sought condonation of delay in the appeals. 8. Upon perusal of these submissions, we find that these reasons and arguments are very general in nature. Difficulty in compliance or change in concerned offices / professional or the fact that the TIN facilitation centre was far-off could not be a reasonable cause to justify such an inordinate delay. The plea that the assessee was waiting for the outcome of judi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
