PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK,THRISSUR vs. THE ITO(TDS), THRISSUR

The present appeal of the assessee is arising from the order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) dated 15thFebruary, 2024 and relates to the assessment year 2009-2010 having DIN & Order No.ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1060970704(1).

At the outset we observe that there is a delay of 550 days before the ld.CIT(A) and hence the ld.CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee failed to explain the reasons for the delay of 550 days. The ld.CIT(A) held that no reasons have been cited before him much less constituting sufficient cause for the condonation of delay.

The learned Departmental Representative relied upon the orders of the authorities below.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. We observe that the present appeal is related to an order passed u/s.201 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The Assessing Officer has passed the order u/s.201 on 29thMarch, 2016, against that order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the ld.CIT(A) on 1stNovember, 2017. There was a delay of 550 days before the ld.CIT(A). In such types of cases, the Hon’ble Apex Court has held time and again that the discretion for condoning the delay has to be exercised strictly. We further observe that the assessee has given a very vague reason before the ld.CIT(A) for the delay of 550 days. The main reason given by the assessee was that his consultant advised him to file an application for rectification u/s.154 instead of filing appeal before the ld.CIT(A). We cannot shut our eyes on the fact being a Nationalized Bank the assessee must have battery of lawyers for the proper advice in taxation matters. Here we would like to make a reference to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Courtin the case of Post Master General v. Living Media India Ltd. (2012) 20 taxmann.com 347, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 12 & 13 has observed as under:-

In our view, it is the right time to inform all the government bodies, their agencies and instrumentalities that unless they have reasonable and acceptable explanation for the delay and there was bonafide effort, there is no need to accept the usual explanation that the file was kept pending for several months/years due to considerable degree of procedural red-tape in the process. The government departments are under a special obligation to ensure that they perform their duties with diligence and commitment. Condonation of delay is an exception and should not be used as an anticipated benefit for government departments. The law shelters everyone under the same light and should not be swirled for the benefit of a few. Considering the fact that there was no proper explanation offered by the Department for the delay except mentioning of various dates, according to us, the Department has miserably failed to give any acceptable and cogent reasons sufficient to condone such a huge delay. Accordingly, the appeals are liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay.”

Perusal of the above observation of the Hon’ble Supreme Court would show that the Supreme Court has categorically held that the Government Departments are under special obligation to ensure that they are performing their duties with diligent and commitment. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the prayer of the assessee and affirm the order of the ld.CIT(A). Before parting, we would also like to make a reference to the recent judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court . Punjab National Bank. in the case of Pathapati Subba Reddy reported in (2024) 4 SCR 241. In this case also, the Hon’ble Supreme court has held that the Court should not condone delay in the cases of inordinate delay and negligence. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the present appeal.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.