9911796707
|
Home
Forgot password New User/ Regiser ⇒ Register to get Live Demo
2023 (2) TMI 84 - AT - Income TaxCondonation of delay - huge delay of more than 2500 days in filing of the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A) - Levy of late fees u/s.234E - HELD THAT - No doubt, as per the judgments of various Courts, while a liberal approach is to be normally taken in considering the application for condonation of delay, because substantial justice deserves to be preferred over technical consideration, but it is equally true that a person invoking the discretion of the appellate authority in inordinately belated appeals is required to show compelling cause, the operation of which was beyond its control. In this case, as per facts available on record, we find that the delay is not for a month or two, but is for a significantly large period of 2500 days. It is well settled that a distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and where the delay is of few days only. In our considered view, these appeals fall within the former category. The quantum of delay makes it manifestly evident that these appeals were not prosecuted with due care. Therefore, no error in the reasons given by the Ld.CIT(A) to dismiss appeals filed by the assessee unadmitted for delay in filing of the appeals - Appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
Issues Involved:
1. Condonation of delay in filing the appeal. 2. Levy of late fees under Section 234E for delay in filing Quarterly TDS returns. Detailed Analysis: 1. Condonation of Delay in Filing the Appeal: The assessee filed appeals against the orders of the AO, CPC, TDS Cell, with a delay of more than 2000 days. The CIT(A) dismissed these appeals without condoning the delay, stating the assessee could not explain the substantial delay satisfactorily. The assessee argued that the delay was due to ambiguity in the law regarding the levy of late fees under Section 234E before the amendment to Section 200A by the Finance Act, 2014, effective from 01.06.2015. The assessee also claimed that wrong advice from their consultant contributed to the delay. However, the CIT(A) found these reasons insufficient and unsubstantiated, emphasizing that the assessee should have been aware of the law and sought timely professional advice. The Tribunal upheld the CIT(A)'s decision, noting that the delay ranged from 600 to 2500 days and was not justified by the reasons provided. The Tribunal cited various judicial precedents, including the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in Somerset Place Co-operative Housing Society Limited vs. Income Tax Officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Collector of Land Acquisition v. MST.Katiji & Ors., which stress the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and the need for litigants to explain delays with reasonable causes. The Tribunal concluded that the reasons given by the assessee did not constitute sufficient cause for condonation of such a significant delay. 2. Levy of Late Fees Under Section 234E: The issue involved the levy of late fees under Section 234E for delayed filing of Quarterly TDS returns for the assessment years 2013-14, 2014-15, and 2015-16. The assessee contended that the levy of late fees for periods before 01.06.2015 was unjustified and without jurisdiction, as the amendment to Section 200A enabling such fees was effective only from that date. The Tribunal noted that various courts and tribunals had consistently held that late fees under Section 234E could not be levied before the amendment to Section 200A effective from 01.06.2015. However, the Tribunal did not delve into the merits of this issue due to the dismissal of the appeals on the grounds of delay. The Tribunal emphasized that procedural rules are essential for the orderly administration of justice and cannot be ignored to suit the convenience of a party. The Tribunal reiterated that while a liberal approach is generally taken in condoning delays, the reasons provided by the assessee in this case did not justify such a significant delay. Conclusion: The Tribunal dismissed all appeals filed by the assessee due to the inordinate delay in filing and upheld the CIT(A)'s decision not to condone the delay. The Tribunal emphasized the importance of adhering to statutory limitations and providing reasonable explanations for delays in judicial proceedings. The Tribunal did not address the merits of the levy of late fees under Section 234E, as the appeals were dismissed on procedural grounds.
|
