MUDHOL PATTINA SAHAKARI SANGH NIYAMITA,MUDHOL vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER,WARD-2, BAGALKOT

PAN NO : AAEAM7882P APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Veeranna M. Murgod, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Ganesh R Ghale, Standing Counsel for Revenue Date of Hearing : 26.12.2023 Date of Pronouncement : 26.12.2023 O R D E R PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:

This appeal by assessee is directed against order of NFAC for the assessment year 2018-19 dated 2.1.2023 passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “The Act”). The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:

1. The ld. Assessing Officers’ order is opposed to the facts of the case and law.

2. Because, the ld. CIT(A) has overlooked the facts of the case and had confirmed the disallowance made the assessing officer at CPC, Bengalur of Rs.13,01,133/- as incorrect claim u/s 143(1)(a)(ii) of the I.T. Act, 1961. We daw support in the ITAT cases decided : a. Medi Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd., Medi, Amreli 365 630 Vs. The ADIT (CPC), Bengaluru, for assessment year 2019-20. B. Shri Nava Ujala Seva Sahakari Mandali Ltd. at Navaujala, Ta. Kundavav, Amereli Vs. The DCIT/ACIT(CPC), Bengaluru, ITA No.20/Rjt/2022 for assessment year 2019-20. c. The Karohta Co-operative Agriculture Service Society Ltd., VPO Karohta, Tehsil Bhoranj, Dist Hamirpur Vs. The ITO, Ward Hamirpur, ITA No.447/CHD/2022 for assessment year 2018-19.

M/s. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Mudhol Page 2 of 6 3. Because, the ld. CIT (Appeals) erred in confirming the interest levied by the lower authorities u/s 234A of the I.T. Act, 1961 for default in furnishing return of income which is against law and facts of the case.

4. Because, the ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the interest levied by the lower authorities u/s 234B of the I.T. Act, 1961 for default in advance payment of tax, which is against law and facts of the case.

3.1 I have gone through the above reasons advanced by assessee. In the present case, assessee has received the impugned order of the NFAC on 3.1.2023. The assessee has to file appeal before this Tribunal on or before 5.3.2023. However, the same has been filed on 10.10.2023. Thus, there was a delay of 220 days in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. The reason advanced is that the assessee was busy in carrying out the year end closing of books of accounts. In my opinion herein, the financial year 2022-23 has been ended on 31.3.2023. Even after that the assessee has not filed the appeal before this Tribunal. It took another 190 days’ time to file the appeal. Being so, the reason advanced by assessee that assessee was busy in finalizing the year end accounts is not proper. In my opinion, there is no good and sufficient reason to file this appeal belatedly before this Tribunal. The assessee has failed to bring any material on record to prove that its bonafide attempt in filing the appeal belatedly. In my opinion, assessee has not acted with due diligence in filing the appeal before this Tribunal. On the other hand, assessee was casual in its approach in taking the steps in filing the appeal against the impugned order of NFAC. In the absence of any evidence to prove the bonafide of the assessee except the affidavit filed by the assessee, the delay of 220 days before this Tribunal cannot be condoned. The assessee is a Co-operative Society associated by Advocates & Chartered Accountants and ignorance of law is no excuse.

3.2 In this regard, I may refer the judgement of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Swadeshi Cotton Mills Co. Ltd. Vs. The Government of UP & Ors. (1975) 4 SCC 378, wherein held as follows: "..... But we are in agreement with the High Court on the other two grounds. As mentioned earlier, the impugned assessments were made M/s. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Mudhol Page 5 of 6 in 1949. The writ petition was filed in 1956. The explanation given by the petitioner for this long delay is that he did not know the correct legal position and he came to know about the same after the decision of the Allahabad High Court in the Commissioner of Sales Tax, U.P. Vs. Modi Food Products Ltd. Every individual is deemed to know the law of the land. He courts merely interpret the law and do not make law. Ignorance of law is not an excuse for not taking appropriate steps within limitation. Therefore, the argument that the appellant did not know the true legal position is not one that can be accepted in law ...”

3.3 Further, coordinate bench of Chennai (Third Member) in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. reported in 104 ITD 149, wherein held as follows: “A distinction must be made between a case where the delay is inordinate and a case where the delay is of a few days. Whereas in the former case, the consideration of prejudice to the other side will be a relevant factor, so the case calls for a more cautious approach, in the latter case, no such consideration may arise and such a case deserves a liberal approach. No hard and fast rule can be laid down in this regard. The Court has to exercise the discretion on the facts of each case, keeping in mind that in considering the expression ‘sufficient cause’, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance (para 5) The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum ; vigilanti bus non dormientibus jura subveniunt. (para 6)

The delay cannot be condoned simply because the appellant’s case is hard and calls for sympathy or merely out of benevolence to the party seeking relief. In granting the indulgence and condoning the delay, it must be proved beyond the shadow of negligence, whatsoever. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of the limitation provision must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions. The cause for the delay in filing the appeal, which by due care and attention, could have been avoided, cannot be a sufficient cause within the meaning of the limitation provision. Where no negligence, or inaction, or want of bona fides can be imputed to the appellant, a liberal construction of the provisions has to be made in order to advance substantial justice. Seekers of justice must come with clean hands.

In the instant case, the assessee justified the delay only with reference to the affidavit of its director. In the said affidavit it was stated that the Commissioner (Appeal)’s order was misplaced and forgotten. It was found while sorting out the unwanted papers and thereafter steps were taken for the preparation of the appeal and consequently the delay was M/s. Mudhol Pattina Sahakari Sangha Niyamita, Mudhol Page 6 of 6 caused. That clearly showed that the delay was due to the negligence and inaction on the part of the assessee. The assessee could have very well avoided the delay by the exercise of due care and attention. There existed no sufficient and good reason for the delay of 310 days. Therefore, reasonings adduced by the Accountant Member wee to be concurred with. (para 8)”

3.4 In view of this, I decline to condone the delay in filing the appeal before this Tribunal belatedly. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as unadmitted.