ALLAHABAD BANK NOW INDIAN BANK,PANCHKULA vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (TDS CIRCLE), PANCHKULA

This is an appeal filed by the Assessee u/s 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (herein referred to as ‘the Act’] before this Tribunal. The Assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing No. ITBA/APL/S/250/2023- 24/1060950534(1) dated 15.02.2024 passed u/s 250 of the Act which is herein after referred to as the “impugned order”. The relevant A.Y. is 292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 2 2015-16 and the corresponding previous period is from 1.4.2014 to 31.3.2015.

1. That the learned Authorities below have erred in law as well as on facts of the case in making and confirming demand of Rs. 4,76,709/- made u/s 201, 201A of I.T Act. That the order passed by learned CIT Appeals confirming the unwarranted demand is totally wrong, illegal and excessive in nature.

3. The hearing in the matter took place before us on 19.11.2024 when the ld. AR for and on behalf of the Assessee bank appeared and placed on record a paper book containing pages from 1 to 81 and a written submission. It was contended by him that the ld. CIT(A) ought to have condoned the delay of 444 days in preferring first appeal u/s 246A of the Act as u/s 249(3) of the Act Assessee bank had established sufficient cause to seek condonation of delay. The original assessment order is dated 15.3.2022 wherein an amount of Rs. 4,76,709/- was assessed and demanded. The Assessee bank was aggrieved of this order and preferred first appeal before ld. CIT(A) on 17.07.2023. The demand notice on the Assessee was served on 28.3.2022 and hence appeal ought to have been filed on or before 28.4.2022. In column No.15 of Form

292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 4 No.35 which is form of appeal to be filed before CIT(A).Tthe Assessee had stated in column No. 15 as under;- "It is humbly submitted that due to bank merger, assessee did not have access to TRACES portal and physical notices were not received at branch address. Further, due to time constraint and on-going audit in Indian Bank (Panchkula) Branch, assessee branch was not able to file Appeal to Learned CIT(A) within time prescribed in the Act therefore it is requested to you please condone the delay in fling the Appeal. Further, Form 35 was already fled Ack No. 615409770120522 dated 12.05.2022 However, AY was wrongly captured as AY 14-15 instead of AY 15- 16 and hence re-submitting now for kind perusal pl’.”

Under section 249(3) of the Act, the appellate authority may, on good and sufficient reason for the delay being shown, admit an Appeal after the expiry of the period of limitation.

4.2 On the issue of delay in filing the appeal, the reason given by the appellant is lack of availability of time, ongoing audit and lack of access to TRACES . The appellant had received the order on 28th March 2022

292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 5 as per form 35. Therefore, appellant not having access to TRACES system and not having access to physical service of notices explained the delay of 13 days between the date of service of order and date of order. However, the delay of further 444 days from the date of service of notice to the date of filing of appeal is attributed by the appellant to the lack of availability of time and ongoing audit. However, this shows that the appellant was casual in attitude. Appellant had also mentioned wrong FY and AY while filing form 35 which also reflects its casual attitude.

4.3 In the case of Satbarg Singh v. Income-tax Officer, Ward- 2 (3), Chandigarh [2015] 61 taxmann.com 46 (Chandigarh - Trib.), it was held that in condoning the delay the appellate authority must be satisfied that there has been due diligence on the part of the appellant and it was not guilty of negligence. The sufficient cause within the contemplation of these provisions must be a cause which is beyond the control of the party invoking the aid of the provisions.

4.4 In the instant case, the reason given by the appellant appears to be a lame excuse. Thus, the cause as explained by the appellant doesn't appear to be reasonable and sufficient. The language used in section 249(3) is "sufficient cause" and not "reasonable cause". 'Sufficient cause' is much more stringent that the term 'reasonable cause' and even if a cause is reasonable, it has to be ascertained whether it was a sufficient cause or not. The cause given by the appellant is very general and unverifiable. If this kind of reason is accepted, then any one can take this plea.

It has already been discussed above that for qualifying u/s 249(3) for condonation of delay, the appellant must show that he was diligent all along with taking

292-Chd-2024 Allahabad Bank, Now Indian Bank, Panchkula 6 appropriate steps and if he appears to be guilty of lapses or negligence, then he must be prepared to have his remedy barred without expecting condonation.

4.5 Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of Basawaraj and Ors vs The Special Land Acquisition Officer, held that the sufficient cause does not include the negligent manner in which the applicant had acted or/ and there was a want of bona fide, on his/her part. If a party does not act diligently or remains inactive, it cannot qualify as sufficient ground allowing the court to exercise discretion in favour of such a party. We are further of the view that condonation of delay is not an automatic right but requires the person requesting it to provide a valid explanation for each day of delay and demonstrate a reasonable cause. The discretion to condone the delay has to be exercised judiciously based on facts and circumstances of each case. "Sufficient Cause" cannot be liberally interpreted if negligence, inaction or lack of bona fides is attributing to the party.

4.6 On the basis of the circumstances of the case, it is held that the appellant was not having "sufficient cause" for delay in filing appeal. The appeal filed by the appellant is held to be invalid and non-maintainable being out of time. For statistical purposes, the appeal is treated as DISMISSED in-limine.