DISTRICT PROJECT LIVELIHOOD COLLEGE SOCIETY,GARIYABANDH (C.G) vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER (TDS),RAIPUR, AYKAR BHAWAN

furnished by the assessee in ITA No. 271/RPR/2025 for AY 2016-17 are as under:

1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the order of Ld. Addl./JCIT (A)-5 Mumbai in dismissing the appeal of the appellant is incorrect and the appeal of the appellant deserves proper adjudication in the interest of natural justice.

2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer defied the principles of natural justice by not allowing proper opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessing officer erred in treating the appellant assessee in default u/s 201(1) and levied penalty of Rs.9,07,501/- on account of non-deduction of TDS u/s 201(1).

4. The appellant craves to add, alter or delete any of the grounds of appeal during the course of appellate proceedings. District Project Livelihood College Society vs. ITO(TDS), Raipur

5. At the outset, Ld. AR representing the assessee submitted that the aforesaid three appeals are dismissed by the Ld. Addl/JCIT, NFAC on account of delay in filing of appeal, which has not been condoned by the First Appellate Authority, even after assessee’s submissions for condonation of delay having justifiable reasons to do so. To clarify further, Ld. AR drew our attention to the relevant observations of the Ld. Addl/JCIT(A) while disposing of the appeal, which for the sake of completeness are extracted as under:

2. Decision: The submission of the appellant is considered. It is seen that the order u/s 201 dated 30.01.2019 was served on 26.02.2019 and appeal is filed on 24.01.2023. Thus there was delay of 1429 days. Even if the period of from 15.03.2020 to 28.02.2022, as per Hon’ble Supreme Court order, is excluded still there is delay of 730 days in filing of appeal. In its submission the appellant has stated that it was not aware about the process of filing of appeal. Further it has also submitted that it was pursuing the matter with the AO. It may be apposite to mention here that the appellant being a government agency cannot claim the ignorance of law as a justification for delay in filing of appeal. The courts have also held that pursuing the alternative mechanism cannot be a ground justifying the delay in filing of appeal. In the case of Amar Shakti Co-operative Labour & Construction Society Ltd. vs. Commissioner of Income Tax, Bhatinda, [2009] 2 taxman.com 62, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that merely because the rectification application u/s 254(2) was pending before the tribunal cannot justify the delay in filing of appeal before the High Court. The appellant was required to furnish the sufficient cause together with the evidence for the claim made. This has not been done. Therefore, it held that the reasons given for condonation of delay does not tantamount to sufficient cause within the meaning of District Project Livelihood College Society vs. ITO(TDS), Raipur section 249(3) of the Act and the delay is attributable to the negligence and inaction on the part of the appellant. The filed submission justifying the condonation is general in nature and without any supporting evidence hence it is held that it is not providing any just and sufficient reasons for delay whereas the law provides for explaining day to day reasons for delay. [See: K.G.N.M.M.W. Educational Research & Analysis Society, [2015] 54 taxmann.com 329 (Jaipur-Trib)] and hence the delay in filing of this appeal cannot be condoned.