A ONE LEATHERS VANIYAMBADI,VANIAMBADI vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD 1(3), CHENNAI

Since identical facts and issues are involved in all these six appeals, these appeals were heard together and disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity and convenience the facts relevant in the ITA No.3438/CHNY/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 are stated herein:

Briefly, the facts of the case are that the appellant is a Partnership Firm. The appellant filed the returns of tax deducted at source in Form-26Q for the Financial Year 2012-13(Q1) on 22.03.2013 with delay. The above said TDS Returns were processed u/s.200A by CPC-TDS Cell, Ghaziabad vide intimation dated 17.09.2016 levying late fee u/s.234E of the Act.

Being aggrieved by the said intimation, an appeal was filed before the Learned CIT(A) with a delay of 3376 days. The Learned CIT(A) had refused to condone the delay ad dismissed the appeal in limine on the grounds of delay placing reliance on the following judicial precedents by following several judicial decisions: “1. In Shakti Clearing Agency (P) Ltd. v. ITO (2003) 127 Taxmann, it was held that if the appellant has acted diligently, the delay may ordinarily be condoned. However, where the delay is attributable to negligence on the part of the appellant, condonation may not be justified.

Being aggrieved by the order of ld.CIT(A), the appellant is in appeal before us in the present appeal. At the outset, we find that there is a delay of 10 days in presenting appeal before this Tribunal.

The appellant also filed a petition seeking condonation of delay on the ground that due to the affect of Viral Fever to the Authorized Representative of the appellant, appellant could not file the appeal within the allowed time.

We have perused the Affidavit and the averments made in the Affidavit. The averments made in the affidavit remain uncontroverted by Learned CIT-DR. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of M.Kalappa Sethi Vs. M.V.Laxmi Narain Rao AIR 1973 SC 627, held that an uncontroverted affidavit shall be taken as an affidavit on fact. In the light of this legal position, we are of the considered opinion that the delay had occurred in filing the appeal on account of Bonafide reasons and the explanation cannot be brushed aside. Therefore, we are of considered opinion that there is a reasonable and sufficient cause for the delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Accordingly, we admit the appeal for adjudication on merits.

We heard rival submissions and perused the material available on record. The issue that arises for our consideration is whether the Learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay of 3376 days in presenting appeal before the Learned CIT(A). Admittedly, the appellant had offered explanation by stating that the delay had occurred on account of misguidance offered by the Tax Practitioner. The explanation is extracted vide para 12 of the Learned CIT(A)’s order.

On careful perusal of the explanation offered before the Learned CIT(A) explaining reasons for the delay, it is very clear that the appellant is blaming Tax Practitioner for the misguidance, however, no details such as identity of Tax Practitioner nor the affidavit from Tax Practitioner is filed. It appears that the appellant took a decision not to file an appeal and allowed the period of limitation to lapse and it was filed only because the co-ordinate bench of this Tribunal took a view that the late fee u/s.234E of the Act cannot be levied for a period prior to 01.06.2015. In such circumstances, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ajit Singh Thakur Singh and Anr. Vs. State of Gujarat reported in AIR 1981 SC 733 held that the delay cannot be condoned. Similarly, this only shows that the conduct of the appellant clearly shows that he had chosen to sleep over the rights for prolonged period and not diligent in pursuing the remedies. In this connection, the observation made by the Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Ornate Traders Pvt.

The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights as found in the maxim “Vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt". In the above circumstances, we are inclined to confirm the order of the Learned CIT(A), otherwise it would defeat the very purpose of the limitation. In this connection, we relied on the observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basawaraj vs. The Spl Land Acquisition Officer(Civil Appeal No.6974 of 2013) held as under : “"13. The Statute of Limitation is founded on public policy, its aim being to secure peace in the community, to suppress fraud and perjury, to quicken diligence and to prevent oppression. It seeks to bury all acts of the past which have not been agitated unexplainably and have from lapse of time become stale......An unlimited limitation would lead to a sense of insecurity and uncertainty, and therefore, limitation prevents disturbance or deprivation of what may have been acquired in equity and justice by long enjoyment or what may have been lost by a party's own inaction, negligence or laches."

In the light of above discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the Learned CIT(A) was justified in refusing to condone the delay. We do not find any illegality or perversity in the order of Learned CIT(A), therefore, we do not find any merit in the contentions of the appellant.

In the result, appeal filed by the Assessee in ITA No.3438/CHNY/2026 is dismissed.

Since the facts and issues involved in remaining four appeals of the Assessee are identical, therefore, our decision in ITA No.3438/CHNY/2026 for A.Y.2013-14 shall apply mutatis mutandis to the remaining five appeals of the Assessee in ITA Nos.3439 to 3443/CHNY/2026 2014-15, 2014-15, 2015-16, 2016-17 & 2015-16 respectively. Accordingly, appeals filed by the Assessee in ITA Nos.3439 to 3443/CHNY/2026 are dismissed.

To sum up, all the above captioned appeals of the Assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 31st August, 2026.