9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2020 (4) TMI 285 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - delay of 2554 days in filing the appeal - sufficient cause for delay - assessee waited for the decision of the similar issue pending before the CIT(A) Mysore, which was decided on 31.08.2017 construing the status of the assessee as a Central Government Organization for the purpose of valuation of perquisites and not as an autonomous body - HELD THAT - It is the responsibility of the concerned officer to deduct TDS from the perquisite value of rent free accommodation given to its employees in terms of Rule 3 of I.T.Rules, 1962, without waiting for the decision of CIT(A), Mysore which is not the jurisdiction of the present assessee. We are of the opinion that the grounds taken by the assessee for condonation of delay is not sufficient. The Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project Another 2008 (11) TMI 611 - SUPREME COURT has held that, Settled rights cannot be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without there being any proper explanation of such delay on the ground of involvement of public revenue. It serves no public interest. We are of the opinion that, the delay of 2554 days in filing the present appeal by the assessee cannot be condoned. Accordingly, we dismiss the application for condonation of delay filed by the assessee and consequently, appeal of the assessee is also dismissed on the ground of delay.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal 2. Applicability of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962 3. Status of the Assessee as a Central Government Organization or Autonomous Body Issue-wise Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing Appeal: The primary issue in this judgment is the condonation of a 2554-day delay in filing the appeal by the assessee. The assessee argued that the delay was due to a "genuine belief" regarding the applicability of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, and awaited the resolution of a similar issue by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) Mysore. The assessee cited the decision of the CIT(A) Mysore dated 31/08/2017, which construed the status of the assessee as a Central Government Organization for the purpose of valuation of perquisites. The assessee also argued that the delay was not deliberate or intentional and was due to the absence of proper legal advice. The Tribunal, however, found the reasons provided by the assessee insufficient to condone the delay. The Tribunal referred to the Supreme Court's decision in Pundlik Jalam Patil (D) By Lrs. Vs. Exe. Eng. Jalgaon Medium Project & Another, emphasizing that settled rights should not be lightly interfered with by condoning inordinate delay without proper explanation. The Tribunal noted that the assessee waited for the decision of the CIT(A) Mysore, which was not within its jurisdiction, and failed to act diligently. 2. Applicability of Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962: The assessee contended that the perquisite value of the accommodation provided to its employees should be considered in line with Rule 3 of the Income-tax Rules, 1962, treating the assessee at par with a Central Government Department. This contention was initially rejected by the Assessing Officer (TDS), Bhubaneswar, and subsequently by the CIT(A)-I, Bhubaneswar, in the order dated 04/10/2011. 3. Status of the Assessee as a Central Government Organization or Autonomous Body: The assessee argued that its status should be considered as a Central Government Organization for the purpose of valuation of perquisites, similar to the ruling by the CIT(A) Mysore. The Tribunal noted that the assessee is a constituent unit of the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), New Delhi, and it was the responsibility of the concerned officer to deduct TDS from the perquisite value of rent-free accommodation provided to employees without waiting for the decision of CIT(A) Mysore. Conclusion: The Tribunal concluded that the delay of 2554 days in filing the appeal could not be condoned due to the lack of sufficient cause. The Tribunal emphasized that the law of limitation is founded on public policy and aims to ensure that legal remedies are sought promptly. The Tribunal dismissed the application for condonation of delay and consequently dismissed the appeal of the assessee on the ground of delay. The order was pronounced in the open court on 21/01/2020.
|
