Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE
O R D E R PER BENCH : These bunch of 13 appeals filed by the assessee i.e. Bajaj Steel Industries Limited against the orders of ld.Commissioner of
Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023 Income Tax(Appeals)[NFAC], all dated 25.03.2023 involving proceedings under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y. 2008-2009, 2013-2014 to 2016-2017; A.Y.2008-2009; A.Y.2013-2014, 2014-2015 & 2016-17; A.Y. 2013-2014 to 2014- 2015 respectively. Since common issues are involved in all these appeals, these appeals were heard together and are decided by the consolidated order. We treat appeal in A.Y.2008-09, as a “lead” case. The assessee for A.Y.2008-09 has raised the following grounds of appeal : General Ground “1. That the order passed for FY 2007-08 by the learned CIT(A) under section 250 of the Act, is unjustified, unwarranted and bad in law. Technical Grounds 2. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order without providing adequate opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
3. The learned CIT(A) erred in passing the order on 25 March 2023 whereas the due date for furnishing the response against the first show cause notice was 27 March 2023.
4. The learned CIT(A) did not provide an opportunity of being heard while deciding on assesses request of seeking condonation of delay and rejected the application ex-parte.
5. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the reasons for condonation of delay and the fact that, the assessee was diligent in pursuing an alternate remedy (i.e rectification) before the learned AO which was considered efficacious, considering the facts of the case. The learned AO did not appreciate documentary evidence filed.
Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023
6. The learned CIT(A) erred in not appreciating the facts of the case and reproduced facts in the appellate order which pertains to financial year 2012-13.
7. The learned CIT(A) erred in observing that, that assessee did not file separate appeal for each quarter f financial year 2007-08 without appreciating the fact that, the Income-tax portal allowed only one appeal per financial year and the assessee had saved screenshot of the portal to support its contention. 8. The intimation passed under section 200A r.w.s 154 dated 06/08/2015 for Q2 and demand raised for Q4 of financial year 2007- 08 is bad in law. 9. That for Q2 financial year 2007-08, the assessee had paid challan of Rs.1,83,119 and due to mistake on the part of the State Bank of India who has quoted wrong TAN, credit for corresponding TDS deposited has not been granted and demand has been raised against the assessee erroneously which needs to be rectified/deleted. 10. That for Q2 of financial year 2007-08, interest on short payment under section 201(1A) of Rs.2,31,240 is erroneously raised and needs to be deleted. 11. That demand for Q4 of financial year 2007-08 raised on account of alleged short payment of TDS of Rs.1,48,800. That the assessee had already paid the amount of Rs.1,48,800 and there is challan mis-match error from the departments side which needs to be rectified/deleted after taking cognizance of the challans paid. That demand on account of short deduction of TDS of Rs.6080 is erroneously raised. 12. That for Q4 of financial year 2007-08, interest on short payment of Rs.1,39,690, interest on late payment of Rs.12450 and interest on short deduction of Rs.4320 has been erroneously raised and needs to be deleted. 13. The assessee craves leave to add, alter or withdraw any of the grounds of appeal
.”
2. We have heard both the parties at length and perused the case file. The assessee had filed appeal before ld.CIT(A) against the order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2015. Thus, the time limit to file the appeal was 30 days
Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023 from the date of receipt of the impugned order under section 200A of the Act. However, assessee had filed appeal on 08.09.2021. Therefore, the ld.CIT(A) observed that assessee has filed appeal with delay of 2195 days. Before the ld.CIT(A), assessee only pleaded that assessee was following up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.CIT(A) held that following up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer is not a sufficient reason for such a delay of 2195 days. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay of 2195 days. Accordingly, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee on account of delay.
The ld.Authorised Representative(ld.AR) of the assessee pleaded before us that assessee was trying to follow up the issue with jurisdictional TDS Officer. The ld.AR explained that assessee had requested the Income Tax Officer for rectification. However, the Bench specifically asked the ld.AR date of filing rectification application before the ITO. In reply to the said question, ld.AR submitted that no formal application under section 154 was filed by the assessee before the concerned Income Tax Officer. Thus, it is an admitted fact that assessee had not even filed a rectification application which according to the assessee was alternate remedy. Therefore, the pleading of the assessee that the assessee was Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023 pursuing alternate remedy is factually incorrect and ill founded. The ld.AR has not pleaded any other reason for the inordinate delay of 2195 days. This explains that there was no sufficient cause for the inordinate delay.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj & Anr Vs. Spl.Laq Officer on 22 August, 2013 has held as under : Quote, “9. Sufficient cause is the cause for which defendant could not be blamed for his absence. The meaning of the word "sufficient" is "adequate" or "enough", inasmuch as may be necessary to answer the purpose intended. Therefore, the word "sufficient" embraces no more than that which provides a platitude, which when the act done suffices to accomplish the purpose intended in the facts and circumstances existing in a case, duly examined from the view point of a reasonable standard of a cautious man. In this context, "sufficient cause" means that the party should not have acted in a negligent manner or there was a want of bona fide on its part in view of the facts and circumstances of a case or it cannot be alleged that the party has "not acted diligently" or "remained inactive". However, the facts and circumstances of each case must afford sufficient ground to enable the Court concerned to exercise discretion for the reason that whenever the Court exercises discretion, it has to be exercised judiciously. The applicant must satisfy the Court that he was prevented by any “sufficient cause” from prosecuting his case, and unless a satisfactory explanation is furnished, the Court should not allow the application for condonation of delay…………
The law on the issue can be summarised to the effect that where a case has been presented in the court beyond limitation, the Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023
applicant has to explain the court as to what was the “sufficient cause” which means an adequate and enough reason which prevented him to approach the court within limitation. In case a party is found to be negligent, or for want of bonafide on his part in the facts and circumstances of the case, or found to have not acted diligently or remained inactive, there cannot be a justified ground to condone the delay. No court could be justified in condoning such an inordinate delay by imposing any condition whatsoever. The application is to be decided only within the parameters laid down by this court in regard to the condonation of delay. In case there was no sufficient cause to prevent a litigant to approach the court on time condoning the delay without any justification, putting any condition whatsoever, amounts to passing an order in violation of the statutory provisions and it tantamounts to showing utter disregard to the legislature ” Unquote.
Thus, respectfully following the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we agree with the ld.CIT(A) that there was no sufficient cause for inordinate delay. Accordingly, we uphold the order of the ld.CIT(A) dismissing the appeal of the assessee filed against order under section 200A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 dated 06.08.2016.
5.1 Accordingly, Ground No.5 of the assessee is dismissed.
The assessee has raised totally 13 grounds of appeal, however, before us, ld.AR has not pleaded any other ground of appeal. Ld.AR has not filed any document in support of other
Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023 grounds of appeal. Since ld.AR has not pleaded any other ground other than Ground No.5, all the other grounds i.e.1 to 4 and Ground No.6 to 13 are dismissed.
The Assessee filed copies of following case laws, but were not referred to during the hearing. DDIT (International tax) Vs. Serum Institute of India(2015) 40 ITR (T) 684 Pune Tribunal – In this case, issue was not condonation of delay but application of Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement(DTAA). Hence, this case law is distinguishable on facts.
Danisco India (P.) Ltd., Vs. Union of India [2018] 90 taxmann.com 295 (Delhi) – This case law is also related to application of DTAA, hence, distinguishable on facts.
To sum up, all the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee in are dismissed. to 154/NAG/2023 and ITA Nos.284, 306, 307, 308, 314, 315, 316 & 317/NAG/2023 :
9. Similarly, the remaining bunch of above mentioned appeals are filed against the order of ld.CIT(A)[NFAC] dated 25.03.2023 emanating from orders under section 200A of the Act, 1961 of various dates. The due date for filing appeal was 30 days from the Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023 date of receipt of the impugned order. However, the impugned appeals were filed on 07.08.2021 before the ld.CIT(A) with delay of more than 2584 days in ITA No.151/NAG/2023. Similarly, in the remaining identical appeals i.e.in 153 & 154/NAG/2023 there was a delay of 2584, 2545 and 1989 days respectively, in respect of ITA Nos.284/NAG/2023 there was delay of 2195 days, and in ITA Nos.306, 307, 308 & 314, 315, 316 and 317/NAG/2023 there was delay of 2584 days respectively. In the instant bunch of appeals also, the ld.CIT(A) did not condone the delay.
We have heard the both the parties and perused the material available on record. We have already discussed the issue at length and the facts of the case in the lead appeal i.e. and since the identical grounds are raised in the remaining appeals, we adopt the reasoning given in the “lead” case i.e.ITA No.150/NAG/2023 mutatis-mutandis in remaining appeals i.e.ITA Nos.151 to 154/NAG/2023 and ITA Nos.306, 307, 308, 314, 315, 316 & 317/NAG/2023. Accordingly, grounds of appeal raised in all these appeals are dismissed.
Bajaj Steel Industries Limited (13 appeals) [A] ITA.Nos.150 to 154, 284, 306 to 308, 314 to 317/NAG./2023
To sum up, all Thirteen(13) Appeals of the assessee i.e.ITA Nos.150, 151, 152, 153, 154/NAG/2023 and ITA Nos.306, 307, 308, 314, 315, 316 & 317/NAG/2023 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 26th February, 2024.