2019 (4) TMI 44 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay - appeals before CIT(A) - sufficient reason for delay in filing the appeals - Bank Branch staff and manager are generally not aware about intricacies and procedural aspects of income tax assessment and knowledge of limitation for filing appeal - HELD THAT - Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji 1987 (2) TMI 61 - SUPREME COURT and also Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT 2009 (6) TMI 682 - ITAT MUMBAI have held that for substantial interest of justice, technical delay should be ignored. Applying the propositions of law laid down in the above judicial pronouncements to the facts of the instant case, found that there was sufficient reasons for delay in filing the appeals before the ld. CIT(A) - condone the delay in filing the appeals and the matter is restored back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for deciding the matter afresh as per law in terms of provisions of Section 250(6) - Appeals of the assessee are allowed in part for statistical purposes

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed against orders of CIT(A) for A.Y. 2010-11 to 2016-17 under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, 1961.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed by the assessee against orders of the ld. CIT(A) for different assessment years. The ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals due to delays in filing, without considering the merits of the cases. The assessee, a government bank, had failed to deduct TDS on interest payments exceeding the basic limit, despite customers submitting Form 15G/15H. The Assessing Officer found the bank in default under Sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The delay in filing the appeals was attributed to procedural issues at the branch level, lack of awareness, and transfer of the concerned officer. The bank argued that it did not benefit from the delay and faced the risk of high-handed demands. The ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeals citing unsatisfactory reasons for the delay.

Upon review, the Accountant Member found sufficient reasons for the delay in filing the appeals. Referring to legal precedents, including the case of Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and Sunil Chandra Vohra Vs ACIT, it was held that technical delays should be ignored in the interest of substantial justice. Consequently, the delay was condoned, and the matter was remanded back to the ld. CIT(A) for fresh consideration in accordance with the law. The appeals were allowed in part for statistical purposes.