2022 (1) TMI 822 - AT - Income Tax

Condonation of delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) - delay of 636 days - Short deduction of TDS u/s 192 - order u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - assessee bank had allowed the claim of its employees of LTC u/s 10(5) - reasons stated in Form No.35 was that the old bank manager was transferred and new bank manager was not aware of the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) - HELD THAT - As rightly pointed out by the CIT(A), the reasons stated in Form No.35 is lacking substance. Even before the Tribunal, inspite of specific query, the learned AR has not produced any proof to show when the old bank manager was transferred and the new manager taken over charge. The learned AR was specifically asked when the new manager became aware of the order passed u/s 201(1) and 201(1A) of the I.T.Act. Though the learned AR had sought time and we had repeatedly granted adjournment, there is no information on the part of the AR for these queries raised by the Bench. The conduct of the assessee is such that there was clear negligence on its part and there is no equitable ground or substantial cause for condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Therefore, we are of the view that the CIT(A) is correctly dismissed the appeal in limine, without condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before him. For these reasons, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A)
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeal
3. Negligence in filing appeal
4. Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without condoning delay
5. Appeal before the Tribunal

Delay in filing appeal before CIT(A):
The appeal at the instance of the assessee was directed against the CIT(A)'s order dated 19.02.2019 for the assessment year 2013-2014. The grounds raised by the appellant included opposition to the appellate order, failure to consider the cause of delay, and errors in upholding the Assessing Officer's order without considering relevant facts. The appellant also denied liability to pay sums under sections 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act. The brief facts revealed that a survey under section 133A of the I.T. Act at the assessee bank's head office led to the discovery of short deductions related to Leave Travel Concession (LTC) payments to employees.

Condonation of delay in filing appeal:
The delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was not condoned, leading to the dismissal of the appeal. The CIT(A) found the reasons for delay, related to a bank manager's transfer and lack of awareness about the order, lacking substance. The appellant's negligence in filing the appeal was highlighted, and the CIT(A) cited relevant case law to support the decision not to condone the delay. The Supreme Court's stance on neglecting one's own right in preferring appeals was referenced to justify the dismissal of the appeal due to the significant delay.

Negligence in filing appeal:
The Tribunal noted that there was no clear evidence of a petition for condoning the delay of 636 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Despite specific queries, the appellant failed to provide proof regarding the transfer of the bank manager and the awareness of the new manager about the order. The conduct of the assessee indicated negligence, as there was no equitable ground or substantial cause presented for condoning the significant delay in filing the appeal.

Dismissal of appeal by CIT(A) without condoning delay:
The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without condoning the delay, as there was no basis to consider condonation of the 636-day delay. The Tribunal concurred with the CIT(A)'s decision, emphasizing the lack of equitable grounds or substantial cause for condoning the delay. The appeal was dismissed based on the negligence displayed by the assessee in filing the appeal.

Appeal before the Tribunal:
The Tribunal, after hearing rival submissions, upheld the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) due to the significant delay of 636 days in filing the appeal. The Tribunal found no evidence to support the appellant's claims regarding the reasons for delay, leading to the conclusion that the CIT(A) correctly dismissed the appeal without condoning the delay. Consequently, the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed by the Tribunal.

This detailed analysis covers the issues involved in the legal judgment, addressing the delay in filing the appeal, the condonation of delay, negligence in filing the appeal, the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) without condoning the delay, and the subsequent appeal before the Tribunal.

← Previous Next →