9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (5) TMI 122 - AT - Income TaxDelay in filling appeal - delay of 1005 days - inordinate delay in filing the appeal is attributable to the lapse on the part of the Courier Company, DTDC through which the assessee had dispatched the captioned appeals - HELD THAT - As stated by the assessee itself that the assessee did not make any efforts to pursue the appeals till it decided to settle these appeals under VSV Scheme to end the litigation. It was only after passing of more than nearly two and half years that the assessee realised that its appeals have not been filed before the Tribunal. In our humble view, the assessee could have at least enquired with the Tribunal after sending the appeals via courier on 07.05.2018 whether it has received them or not and taken the appeal nos. Instead, the assesee chose to sit silently under the guise of bonafide belief that the Tribunal would have received its courier and appeals would have been filed. It is, therefore not convincing that the delay was caused due to the reasons beyond the control of the assessee. Even after filing the application for condonation of delay on 26.02.2021, none is appearing for / or on behalf of the assessee before the Tribunal on several dates fixed for hearing of the captioned appeals. The facts on record clearly indicate that delay was caused due to negligence, lethargy or inaction on the part of the assessee and therefore not worthy of condonation. Thus we decline to condone the inordinate delay of 1005 days in filing appeal before the Tribunal. Decided against assessee.
Issues Involved:
1. Validity of the penalty imposed. 2. Barred by limitation under Section 275(1)(C). 3. Legality of the penalty order. 4. Reasonable cause for not deducting TDS under Section 195. 5. Knowledge of the seller's NRI status. 6. Merits, circumstances, and legal aspects of the case. Summary: 1. Validity of the Penalty Imposed: The assessee argued that the penalty imposed was "bad in facts and legal aspects of the case." The Tribunal upheld the penalty, stating the assessee failed to deduct TDS under Section 195 when making payment to an NRI seller, Smt. Nidhi Raman. The Tribunal found no reasonable cause for this failure, confirming the penalty of Rs. 12,36,000/- for AYs 2004-05, 2005-06, and 2006-07. 2. Barred by Limitation under Section 275(1)(C): The assessee contended that the penalty was time-barred. The Tribunal clarified that the penalty proceedings under Section 271C are independent and initiated by the Joint Commissioner on a reference from the AO. The penalty notice was issued on 03.05.2016, and the order passed on 28.03.2017 was within the prescribed time limit, dismissing the ground of appeal on this issue. 3. Legality of the Penalty Order: The assessee claimed the penalty order was bad in law because it was passed by the Additional Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation, Noida, and a demand notice was issued on the same date by the Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, International Taxation Circle, Lucknow. The Tribunal found that the officers had jurisdiction over the appellant and dismissed this ground of appeal. 4. Reasonable Cause for Not Deducting TDS under Section 195: The assessee argued that it had a reasonable cause for not deducting TDS, as it was unaware that Smt. Nidhi Raman was an NRI. The Tribunal dismissed this argument, stating that sufficient inquiry about the property and its owners should have revealed the NRI status, and the appellant failed to prove a reasonable cause for the failure. 5. Knowledge of the Seller's NRI Status: The assessee claimed ignorance of the seller's NRI status, arguing there were no circumstances to suggest she was an NRI. The Tribunal found this claim devoid of substance, emphasizing the need for due diligence in property transactions, especially involving NRIs. 6. Merits, Circumstances, and Legal Aspects of the Case: The Tribunal noted that the appeals were filed late by 1005 days and the delay was attributed to the courier service. However, the Tribunal found that the assessee did not pursue the appeals diligently and failed to appear at multiple hearings. The Tribunal declined to condone the delay, citing negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed the appeals as time-barred and devoid of merit, upholding the penalty imposed for the failure to deduct TDS under Section 195. The order was pronounced in the open court on 2nd May, 2023.
|
