CHIEF OFFIER,DAVANGERE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS WARD, DAVANGERE

The ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(Appeals) is not justified in prima facie not accepting the reasons and not condoning the delay. He dismissed the appeals without going into merits of the case. He further submitted that the assessee is situated in a very remote area where there is no professional advice available and there is also lack of staff for proper handling of income tax matters. The assessee is discharging huge task of implementing various basic amenities and day to day services to general public at large. There was transfer of concerned Officer. The assessee has no intention to jeopardize the interest of the revenue by delaying filing of appeal. In support of his arguments he relied on the coordinate Bench decision in the case of Child Development Project Officer in ITA No.882 to 890/Bang/2013, order dated 09.01.2024.

The ld. DR submitted that assessee is a State Govt. department and should have been aware of Rules & Regulations for running the office and whether it is located in rural or urban area is irrelevant. The Govt. Officer has to discharge duties with due diligence. But this is clear case of negligence and appeal should have been filed within the due date prescribed under the Act. The ld. CIT(A) has passed a good reasoned order and it should not be disturbed.

Considering the rival submissions, we note that a survey was conducted and it was noted that assessee was required to deduct TDS u/s. 194 on the payments made as set out in the assessment orders and picked out from the Receipt & Payment account of the assessee. The ld. AR submitted that some of these payments are not covered by provisions of section 194C and the amount considered by the AO is the year ending figure. We also note that the assessee has filed appeal before CIT(Appeals) much after the due date and the CIT(A) has not condoned the delay stating that there is no reasonable cause set out by the assessee.

In case of People Education & Economic Development Society Vs. ITO reported in 100 ITD 87 (TM) (Chen), it was held that;

Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Sreenivas Charitable Trust reported in 280 ITR 357 held that, no hard and fast rule can be laid down in the matter of condonation of delay and the Court should adopt a pragmatic approach and the Court should exercise their 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 and the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, this Judgment of the Hon'ble Madras High Court (supra) clearly says that in order to advance substantial justice which is of prime importance, the expression sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. Therefore, for the purpose of advancing substantial justice which is of prime importance in the administration of justice, the expression "sufficient cause" should receive a liberal construction. In opinion of this Tribunal, this decision of Hon'ble Madras High Court is applicable to the present facts of the case. A similar view was taken by Hon'ble Madras High Court in the case of Venkatadri Traders Ltd. v. CIT (2001) 168 CTR (Mad) 81 : (2001) 118 Taxman 622 (Mad).

Hon'ble Mumbai Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Bajaj Hindusthan Ltd. v. Jt. CIT (AT) reported in 277 ITR 1 condoned the

With the above observations, following the above judgments, in our considered opinion, there exists sufficient cause in the reasons stated by the assessee for the delay in filing appeals and we condone the delay in filing both the appeals before the CIT(Appeals).

In this case the AO has computed TDS u/s. 194C on the year end figure from Receipt & Payment account of assessee which is not

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.