2018 (10) TMI 792 - AT - Income Tax

Delay in filing appeals - reasons for delay - period of limitation - bonafide Mistake - fee for late filing of TDS return u/s. 234E - condonation of delay - reason for the delay in filing these appeals before the CIT(A) that the officer handling the TDS issues was transferred from the concerned Branch and subsequently, noticed by the Head Office and the appeals were filed - Held that - The reason as come out from the condonation petitions filed by the assessee, as stated earlier, is that there was transfer of the officer who was handling the issue. We cannot accept such proposition as it cannot be considered as good and sufficient reason to condone the delay. As submitted that the delay is to be condoned since the issue on merit covered in favour of the assessee. This submission ignores the fact that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation. This is based on the Maxim interest reipublicae sit finis litium i.e. for the general benefit of the community at large, because the object is every legal remedy must be alive for a legislatively fixed period of time. The object is to get on with life, if you have failed to file an appeal within the period provided by the Statute. It is for the general benefit of the entire community so as to ensure that stale and old matters are not agitated and the party who is aggrieved by an order can expeditiously mover higher forum to challenge the same, if he is aggrieved by it. The assessee should be well aware of the statutory provisions and the period of limitation and should pursue its remedies diligently. It cannot expect their appeals be entertained because they are after all the assessee, notwithstanding the fact that delay is not sufficiently explained. Hence, the delay is not condoned and the appeals are unadmitted.

Issues Involved:
1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A).
2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals.
3. Merits of the case regarding the late filing fee under Section 234E of the Income Tax Act.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Delay in filing appeals before the CIT(A):

The primary issue in these appeals concerns the delay in filing appeals before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] by the assessee. The delays ranged from 285 days to 913 days across various branches for the assessment years 2013-14 and 2014-15. The assessee attributed the delay to the transfer of the officer handling the Tax Deducted at Source (TDS) issues, leading to the late filing of appeals.

2. Condonation of delay in filing appeals:

The assessee submitted affidavits explaining that the delay was due to the transfer of the officer concerned. However, the Tribunal found this reason too general and unsatisfactory. The Tribunal emphasized that there was no proper explanation for the prolonged delay and no evidence of steps taken to expedite the filing of appeals. The Tribunal referenced the Supreme Court's decision in the case of "Office of the Chief Post Master General and Others vs. Living Media India Ltd, and Another," which highlighted the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for the delay.

The Tribunal noted that the law of limitation binds everyone, including government departments, and condonation of delay is an exception, not a rule. The Tribunal emphasized that the assessee, being a scheduled bank with access to qualified personnel, should have been more diligent in pursuing its remedies within the statutory period.

3. Merits of the case regarding the late filing fee under Section 234E:

The assessee argued that it had a good case on merit, citing a previous Tribunal decision in favor of the assessee in a similar case. However, the Tribunal clarified that each case for condonation of delay must be decided based on the specific explanation offered for the delay. The Tribunal rejected the argument that the delay should be condoned merely because the issue on merit was covered in favor of the assessee. The Tribunal stressed that the object of the law of limitation is to bring certainty and finality to litigation and ensure that legal remedies are pursued within a legislatively fixed period.

The Tribunal concluded that the assessee failed to provide a sufficient and reasonable explanation for the delay, and as such, the delay could not be condoned. Consequently, the appeals were dismissed as unadmitted.

Conclusion:

In summary, the Tribunal dismissed the appeals filed by the assessee due to the failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the delay in filing the appeals before the CIT(A). The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to the statutory period of limitation and the need for a plausible and acceptable explanation for any delay. The appeals were dismissed as unadmitted, and the order was pronounced in open court on October 8, 2018.

← Previous Next →