M/S REGIONAL TRANSPORT OFFICER ,BANGALORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS) WARD-18(2), BANGALORE

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BANGALORE BENCHES “ B ” BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 (Assessment Years : 2010-11 to 2012-13) M/s. Regional Transport Officer, Vs. Income Tax Officer Rajajinagar (West), (TDS), Rajajinagar Shopping Complex, Ward 18(2), Post Office Road, Rajajinagar, Bangalore. Bangalore-560 010 TAN : BLRRO 1368D (Appellant) (Respondent)

Assessee By: Shri Siddesh S N Gaddi, C.A. Revenue By: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (D.R)

Date of Hearing : 14.08.2019 Date of Pronouncement : 27.09.2019

O R D E R PER SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : These are the appeals filed the assessee against the common order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Bangalore Dt.14.02.2019 for the Asst. Years 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13 rejecting the condonation of delay in filing the appeals. Whereas there is a delay of 2,040 days in filing the appeals before the

2 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 appellate authorities. Since the issues in these appeals are common and identical they are clubbed and common consolidated order is passed. For the sake of convenience, we shall take up the ITA No.607/Bang/2019 for the A.Y. 2010-11 and facts narrated therein. 2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal (ITA 607/Bang/2019) :

3 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019

4 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 2011-12 & 2012-13 and referred to the pages 6 to 9 of the Paper Book para 4 as under.

5 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019

6 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019

7 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 Further it was submitted that the delay in filing is not a wanton but due to change in the post of Road Transport Officer as mentioned in the Paper Book and that the learned CIT (Appeals) has rejected the appeal on technical grounds and supported the arguments and relied on judicial decisions and prayed for condonation of delay. 5. Contra, the learned Departmental Representative vehemently objected to the submissions and mentioned that there is no sufficient and reasonable cause in the contentions of the assessee for condoning the delay in filing the appeal and prayed for dismissing the appeal. 6. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. Prima facie, there is a delay of 2,040 days in filing the appeals. On verification of the learned CIT (Appeals) order, the assessee has filed the information / details for delay in filing the appeal, whereas the learned CIT (Appeals) has dealt on the disputed issue and judicial decisions cited and examined the reasons submitted by the assessee for inordinate delay in filing the appeal referred at page 6 paras 5.2 to 5.4 of order which is read as under :

8 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019

Further the learned Authorised Representative could not explain the sufficient cause for delay and there is no clarity of facts and explanations in delay in filing. We are of the opinion that

9 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 the delay should be supported with reasonable cause and has to be explained. In the present case, the ld. AR further emphasized that the assessee is State Govt. Road Transport Office and due to various responsibilities and change of office in the post as RTO, the filing of appeal has escaped the attention and also due to lapses on the part of clerks and passage of time. We find the explanations are general and vague submissions and the ld. AR could not explain the delay attributable to day to day basis. We find from the assessee's written submissions at Page 6, the order under Section 201(1) and 201(1A) of the Act was passed on 28.3.2012 and was served on 2.4.2012 whereas there is a change of officer mentioned at Sl. Nos.1 to 6 referred at page 8 para 9 as under :

“ 9. That, there were several persons who were posted as the Regional Transport Officer in the aforesaid office for different periods as under :

10 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019

We, on perusal of the Chart filed by the assessee in the written submissions above, that the order under Section 201 & 201(1A) of the Act Dt.28.3.2012 was served on assessee on 2.4.2012 whereas at Sl.No.1, the officer being RTO was posted from 20.6.2011 to 21.5.2012 and he was the RTO during the period of assessment and Assessment Order was served on 2.4.2012 much before his completion of term as on 21.5.2012 whereas the second officer referred at Sl.No.2 was in-charge for the period from 21.5.2012 to 18.7.2013 even during this period the assessee could not file the appeal with the appellate authorities. It shows that there is no priority given to the filing of appeal in Income Tax matters. We found that the explanations and reasons envisaged by the learned Authorised Representative of the assessee does not satisfy the conduct of the assessee and not being vigilant on the Income Tax matters. We support our view with the Special Bench decision in the case of JCIT Vs. Tractors & Farm Equipments Ltd. 104 ITD 149 (SB) at page 150 wherein it was observed as under :

11 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 “ 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 but 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 construing the expression sufficient cause’, the principle of advancing substantial justice is of prime importance. The law assists those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the dictum: viglantibus non doemientibus jura subveniunt. 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 doubt that the appellant was diligent and was not guilty 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 Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ramlal vs. Rewa Coalfields Ltd. AIR 1962 SC 361 has held that 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, nor 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.” 7. In our opinion the circumstances explained in the condonation petition could not convince us and there seems to be a gross negligence on the part of the assessee were no priority was fixed and such lapses cannot be condoned. Following the decision of Tractors & Farms Equipments Ltd. (supra) where similar issue was dealt by the Tribunal negligence, inaction and inordinate delay in filing the appeal was not condoned and Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights.

12 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 8. We, considering the facts and circumstances are not satisfied with the submissions of the ld. AR on delay and no reasonable cause was explained to condone the delay. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the order of the CIT (Appeals) in rejecting the condonation of delay in filing the appeal and confirm the action of the CIT (Appeals) and dismiss the assessee's appeal. 9. Similarly in ITA Nos.608 & 609/Bang/2019 where the facts are similar being delay in filing the appeals, we apply the finding/decision as dealt in ITA No.607/Bang/2019 discussed in above paragraphs, and muntandis mutandi shall apply and dismissed the assessee's appeals confirming the action of the learned CIT (Appeals) and the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. 10. In the result, the assessee's appeals in ITA Nos.606, 607 & 608/Bang/2019 are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27/09/2019. Sd/- Sd/- (A.K. GARODIA) (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 27.09.2019. *Reddy GP

13 ITA Nos.607 to 609/Bang/2019 Copy to

i)The Appellant ii)The Respondent iii)CIT (Appeals) iv) Pr. CIT v)DR, ITAT, Bangalore vi)Guard File

By order

Assistant Registrar Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Bangalore