Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR
Before: SHRI RAVISH SOOD & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA
आदेश / ORDER PER RAVISH SOOD, JM: The present appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Center (NFAC), Delhi, dated 29.07.2022, which in turn arises from the order passed by the A.O under Sec.271C of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) dated 30.06.2019 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal:
“1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the ld. CIT(A) erred in sustaining the penalty imposed u/s.271C of Rs.7,70,000/-. 2. The assessee craves leave to add, urge, alter, modify and withdraw any ground/grounds before or at the time of hearing of the appeal.”
Succinctly stated, the Addl. CIT (TDS), Raipur vide his order passed u/s.271C of the Act dated 30.06.2019, had saddled the assessee with penalty u/s.271C of the Act of Rs.7,70,000/-.
Aggrieved the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. For the sake of clarity, the relevant observations of the CIT(Appeals) is culled out as under:
“6. I have perused the penalty order and the submissions of the appellant. While section 201(1) contain a specific proviso which states that in case the deductee furnishes a declaration to the effect that return
3 Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Addl. CIT(TDS) ITA No. 81/RPR/2023
has been filed by it and taxes have been paid on the income received from the deductor, then the deductor shall not be deemed to be assessee in default for the purposes of this section and no penalty u/s.221 shall be ordinarily charged. However, such a provision similar to the proviso to Sec.201(1) has not been inserted in Sec.271C which is a penal provision for levying penalty for failure to deduct and deposit the correct amount of TDS unless prevented by reasonable cause. The fact that deductees have filed returns of income and paid due taxes on this amount, cannot be reasonable cause for failure of the assessee-deductor to deduct tax at source. Hence, the penalty order u/s.271C is upheld. Grounds of appeal are dismissed.”
The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal before us.
At the threshold of hearing of the appeal, Ld. Authorized Representative (for short ‘AR’) for the assessee submitted that the appeal involves a delay of 161 days. Elaborating on the reasons leading to the aforesaid delay, it was submitted by the Ld. AR that the same had occasioned because the wife of the assessee, viz. Smt. Sanjukta Singhania in the month of July, 2022 had undergone a major surgery at District. Bargarh, Odisha. Apart from that, it was stated by the Ld. AR that the assessee was himself taken unwell in the month of September, 2022. The Ld. AR in order to fortify the aforesaid facts, had drawn our attention to an “affidavit” of the assessee dated 06.03.2023. Carrying his contention further, the Ld. AR submitted that as there were bona fide reasons for the delay on the part of the assessee to file the present appeal, the same, thus, in all fairness may be
4 Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Addl. CIT(TDS) ITA No. 81/RPR/2023
condoned. Our attention was drawn by the Ld. AR to certain copies of medical reports (uncertified) to drive home the aforesaid factual position.
Per contra, the Ld. Departmental Representative (for short ‘DR’) objected to the seeking of the condonation of delay in filing the present appeal by the assessee. The Ld. DR submitted that as there was no justifiable reason, therefore, the inordinate delay involved in filing of the present appeal did not merit to be condoned.
We have given a thoughtful consideration and perused the material available on record. Although it is the claim of the assessee that the delay involved in filing of the present appeal had occasioned due to ill-health of his wife in the month of July, 2022 who had undergone a major surgery, which, thereafter, was followed by his own ill health in the month of September, 2022 but the said claim is not substantiated on the basis of documentary evidence filed before us by the Ld. AR.
Apropos the medical reports (uncertified) which had been placed on our record, we find that the same are certain general medical reports of Smt. Sanjukta Singhania (supra) of a hospital and diagnostic center, viz. histopathology reports, pathological investigation, ultrasonography report and Thyroid Function Test (TFT) a/w. prescriptions of doctors spread over the period, viz. June, 2022 to August, 2022. Nothing has been brought to our notice, which would substantiate the claim of the assessee that his wife had undergone any surgery in the month of July,
5 Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Addl. CIT(TDS) ITA No. 81/RPR/2023
2022. Also, the assessee’s claim that he was taken unwell in the month of September, 2022 in absence of any material/evidence which would substantiate his said claim stands on no better footing. In fact, the medical reports i.e. general reports, eye test reports, diet charts of the assessee that have been filed before us pertain to January, 2022 and February, 2022, which, thus in no way would support its claim that he was taken unwell in the month of September, 2022.
Apart from that, it transpires that though the assessee had deposited before the Tribunal appeal fees of Rs.500/- on 05.12.2022, but thereafter, had adopted a most lackadaisical approach and had filed an appeal after lapse of 3 months (approx.) i.e. on 07.03.2023. The aforesaid callous approach adopted by the assessee further fortifies our conviction that there is no justifiable reason leading to the inordinate delay of 161 days involved in filing of the present appeal.
Before parting, we may herein observe that as the assessee had not only pathetically failed to substantiate his claim that his wife had in July, 2022 undergone a surgery; nor placed on record any material which would support his claim that he was taken unwell in September, 2022, but also had failed to come forth with any explanation for the delay subsequent to 05.12.2022 (supra), therefore, his aforesaid unsubstantiated claim does not merit acceptance. Be that as it may, we further find that the assessee had failed to explain that as to what stopped him from filing the appeal even after September, 2022, and had filed the same only in March, 2023. We, thus, in terms of our aforesaid observations, reject the assessee’s application for condonation of the inordinate delay of 161 days
6 Jagdish Prasad Singhania Vs. Addl. CIT(TDS) ITA No. 81/RPR/2023
involved in filing of the present appeal. Thus, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed as barred by limitation in terms of our aforesaid observations.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed in terms of our aforesaid observations.
Order pronounced in open court on 02nd day of November, 2023.
Sd/- Sd/- ARUN KHODPIA RAVISH SOOD (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) (JUDICIAL MEMBER) रायपुर/ RAIPUR ; �दनांक / Dated : 02nd November, 2023 **#SB आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant. 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(Appeals)-1, Raipur (C.G.) 4. The Pr. CIT, Raipur-1 (C.G) 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर ब�च, रायपुर / DR, ITAT, Raipur Bench, Raipur. गाड� फ़ाइल / Guard File. 6. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // True Copy // �नजी स�चव / Private Secretary आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, रायपुर / ITAT, Raipur.