2019 (1) TMI 2003 - AT - Income Tax

Condoning the delay in filing of appeal - late filing of appeal before Ld. CIT(A) - late filing fee demand mandated by section 234E through an intimation processed u/s 200A - HELD THAT - We are of the considered view that the reasons given for delay by the assessee are not persuasive enough to permit its condonation. The assessee had no sufficient cause in terms of section 249(3) of the Act for not presenting the appeal within the prescribed period before Ld. CIT(A). Hence the same were rightly dismissed. Therefore we see no reasons to interfere into or deviate from the findings recorded by the Ld.CIT(A). Hence we are of the considered view that the findings so recorded by the Ld. CIT (A) are judicious and are well reasoned. Resultantly these grounds raised by the assessee stands dismissed.

Summary

Issues: Delay in filing appeal, condonation of delay, penal fees u/s 234E.

Analysis:
1. Delay in filing appeal & Condonation of delay: The appellant filed twenty appeals against the orders of Ld. CIT(A) due to delay in filing the appeals. The appellant claimed that the delay was due to wrong advice by tax consultants. However, the tribunal found that the appellant had consciously decided not to file the appeals earlier and only did so after favorable orders were passed by the Appellate Tribunal. The tribunal noted that allowing appeals based on opportunistic reasons would undermine the limitation period for filing appeals and the right of the other party. The tribunal also highlighted the unsettled nature of the issue regarding the competence of CPC-TDS to raise late filing fee demand. Various judgments were considered, emphasizing that condonation of delay requires compelling cause beyond the control of the assessee. The tribunal concluded that the reasons given by the assessee were not sufficient to condone the delay, leading to the dismissal of the appeals.

2. Penal fees u/s 234E: The tribunal addressed the issue of penal fees levied under section 234E by the CPC - TDS department. The appellant argued that the levy of penal fees was against the provisions of the Act. However, the tribunal's decision to dismiss the appeals based on delay rendered this issue moot, and no further adjudication was deemed necessary.

3. Judicial Consistency: The tribunal applied the findings from the lead appeal to all twenty appeals to maintain judicial consistency. As the lead appeal was dismissed due to delay in filing, the same decision was applied to all other appeals, resulting in the dismissal of all twenty appeals filed by the assessee.

In conclusion, the tribunal dismissed all twenty appeals filed by the assessee due to the delay in filing the appeals, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed limitation period for filing appeals and the need for compelling causes to condone such delays. The issue of penal fees u/s 234E was not separately addressed as the appeals were dismissed primarily on grounds of delay. The decision aimed at upholding judicial consistency and ensuring that litigants do not exploit the system for opportunistic reasons.