PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,MODEL TOWN vs. DCIT(TDS), TDS CIRCLE

Since common issues are involved in all the above appeals and were hared together so these are being disposed off by this consolidated order.

With the consent of both the parties the case of the assessee in ITA No. 902/Chd/2024 taken as a lead case for discussion wherein the assessee has raised the following grounds:

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that an order under section 201(1)/201(1A) of the Act was passed by the Assessing Officer on 20.03.2017 holding the assessee to be in default on account of alleged short deduction of TDS and charging interest thereon. The said order was served upon the assessee on 23.03.2017. However, the assessee filed the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) on 26.02.2024, resulting in a delay of 2501 days.

1 As per the statement of facts placed on record, the assessee submitted that it became aware of the impugned order only on 29.12.2023 upon receipt of a show cause notice relating to penalty proceedings, and immediately thereafter took steps to file the appeal along with an application for condonation of delay.

2 The ld. CIT(A), however, was not satisfied with the explanation so furnished and held that the assessee failed to demonstrate sufficient cause for the delay. Accordingly, the delay was not condoned and the appeal was dismissed as non-est without adjudication on merits.

The assessee is in further appeal before us.

The ld. Authorised Representative submitted that the delay in filing the appeal was neither intentional nor deliberate but occurred due to bona fide reasons beyond the control of the assessee. It was submitted that the assessee, being a banking institution, functions through various branch officials and due to administrative reasons and lack of communication, the impugned order remained unnoticed. It was further submitted that the assessee acted promptly upon gaining knowledge of the order.

1 It was further contended that the ld. CIT(A) erred in not appreciating that the notice issued for explaining the delay was sent on an incorrect e-mail ID and was never received by the assessee, thereby depriving it of a reasonable opportunity of being heard. It was thus submitted that the impugned order suffers from violation of principles of natural justice.

The Ld. DR, on the other hand, relied upon the findings recorded in the impugned order and submitted that the delay was inordinate and the assessee failed to substantiate sufficient cause.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an admitted position that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal solely on the ground of delay without adjudicating the issues on merits. It is well settled that the expression “sufficient cause” employed in the statute should receive a liberal construction so as to advance substantial justice.

1 In the present case, the explanation offered by the assessee that it became aware of the impugned order only upon receipt of penalty notice and thereafter acted with promptness, cannot be brushed aside outrightly. Further, the contention that the notice issued by the Ld. CIT(A) was not received due to incorrect e-mail ID also lends credence to the assessee’s claim of lack of proper opportunity.

2 In our considered view, the Ld. CIT(A) has adopted a hyper-technical approach in declining to condone the delay and in dismissing the appeal without affording an effective opportunity of hearing. Such an approach defeats the cause of substantial justice, particularly when the assessee has raised arguable issues on merits.

3 Accordingly, in the interest of justice, we condone the delay in filing the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), subject to the condition that the assessee shall undertake plantation of 1000 (one thousand) trees of Indian origin, each having a minimum height of more than 4 feet, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order.

4 The assessee shall file a detailed compliance report, along with supporting evidence such as photographs, bills/vouchers, and certification from local authorities or a competent agency, before the