GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL, SEWAR, AJMER v. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD

ITA 1423/JPR/2018 | misc
Pronouncement Date: 17-03-2021 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 142323114 RSA 2018
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 1423/JPR/2018
Duration Of Justice 2 year(s) 3 month(s) 7 day(s)
Appellant GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL, SEWAR, AJMER
Respondent ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CPC (TDS), GHAJIABAD
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 17-03-2021
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted SMC
Tribunal Order Date 17-03-2021
Last Hearing Date 16-03-2021
First Hearing Date 16-03-2021
Assessment Year misc
Appeal Filed On 10-12-2018
Judgment Text
VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ U;K;IHB] T;IQJ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCHES A JAIPUR JH LAANHI XKSLKBZ] U;KF;D LNL; OA JH FOE FLAG ;KNO] YS[KK LNL; DS LE{K BEFORE: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN JM & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV AM VK;DJ VIHY LA - @ ITA NOS. 1423 1424 & 1425/JP/2018 FU/KZKJ.K O'KZ @ ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2013-14 (24Q 2ND TO 4TH QTR.) GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL SAWAR AJMER-305622 CUKE VS. A.C.I.T. CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD. LFKK;H YS[KK LA -@THVKBZVKJ LA -@ TAN/GIR NO.: JDHG06297E VIHYKFKHZ@ APPELLANT IZR;FKHZ@ RESPONDENT FU/KZKFJRH DH VKSJ L S@ ASSESSEE BY : FORM-3 FILED JKTLO DH VKSJ LS @ REVENUE BY : SMT. MONISHA CHOUDHARY (ADDL.CIT) LQUOKBZ DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF HEARING : 16/03/2021 MN?KKS'K.KK DH RKJH[ K@ DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17/03/2021 VKNS'K@ ORDER PER: VIKRAM SINGH YADAV A.M. THESE ARE THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE LD. CIT(A) AJMER ALL DATED 09/08/2018 FOR THE A.Y. 2013-14 (24Q 2ND TO 4TH QTR.) RESPECTIVELY. 2. ALL THESE THREE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE HAVE COMMON ISSUES; THEREFORE ALL WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND FOR THE SAKE OF CONVENIENCE A COMMON ORDER IS BEING PASSED. 3. THE HEARING OF THE APPEALS WAS CONCLUDED THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCE IN VIEW OF THE PREVAILING SITUATION OF COVID-19 PANDEMIC. ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 2 4. IN ALL THESE APPEALS THERE IS DELAY OF 43 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. IN THESE APPEALS ALSO THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEALE. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING THE LD AR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THE PRESENT APPEALS AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A) ALONGWITH AN APPLICATION SEEKING CONDONATION OF DELAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE WISHES TO RESOLVE THESE MATTERS AND HAS SINCE MOVED AN APPLICATION UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME 2020. THE A.O. HAS ENQUIRED ABOUT THE STATUS OF THE CONDONATION OF DELAY APPLICATION FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL IN ORDER FOR HIM TO TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION UNDER VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME AND IT WAS THEREFORE REQUESTED TO CONSIDER THE ASSESSEES CONDONATION APPLICATION. 5. IN ITS CONDONATION APPLICATION THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS UNDER: WITH REFERENCE TO THE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTER THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT ' MOST HUMBLY BEGS TO SUBMIT THE FOLLOWING REASONS FOR YOUR HONOURS' KIND PERUSAL. 1. THAT ORIGINAL APPEAL DOCUMENTS WERE FILLED ON DATE 10/12/2018 WITH THE HONORABLE OFFICE. 2. THAT THE DELAY IN FILING OF APPEAL IS 43 DAY. 3. THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL WAS DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPAL WAS BUSY IN ELECTION DUTY SO CANNOT ABLE CONTACT TO C.A. FOR FILING APPEALS LETTER AFTER ELECTION DUTY HE FILED AN APPEAL AND ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 3 HENCE THE FILING OF THE APPEAL WAS DELAYED. ALSO SAWAR IS VILLAGE AND IT TAKES TIME TO CONTACT CA. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT HAS GOT SINCERE DESIRE AND WILLINGNESS TO PROSECUTE HIS APPEAL AND HAD NO INTENTION TO DELAY HIS CASE AND IS KEEN TO ASSIST THE HON'BLE CHAIR IN MOST APPROPRIATE AND PROPER MANNER AND THERE WAS MOST REASONABLE/SUFFICIENT CAUSE BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT WHICH HAS RESULTED INTO DELAY IN SUBMISSION OF APPEAL IF ANY. 5. THE APPELLANT CITE JUDGMENT IN CASE OF IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION: (A) IMPROVEMENT TRUST V. UJAGAR SINGH [2010] 6 SCC 786 (B) POONJA ARCADE V. ASSTT. CIT [2010] 326 ITR 123/191 TAXMAN 291 (KAR.) (C) VEDABAI VAIJAYANATABAI BABURAO PATIL V. SHANTARAM BABURAO PATIL [2002] 253 ITR 798/122 TAXMAN 114 (SC) IN VIEW OF THE FACT THAT THE APPEAL WAS FILED AFTER THE LIMITATION PERIOD BUT THE SAME WAS DUE TO THE REASON BEYOND THE CONTROL OF THE APPELLANT/APPLICANT IT IS REQUESTED THAT DELAY IN FILING THE APPEAL BE CONDONED. ALSO THE APPLICANT/APPELLANT CITED JUDGMENT IN CASE OF STATE OF BIHAR VS KAMSHEWAR PRASAD SINGH (AIR 2000 SC 2006) WHEREIN IT WAS RULED THAT IN THE MATTER OF CONDONATION OF DELAY A LIBERAL APPROACH BE ADOPTED WHEN SUCH DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AND THUS DEFEAT THE CAUSE OF JUSTICE. 6. IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LD AR THAT THERE WAS NO MALAFIDE OR DELIBERATE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS AND IN THE INTEREST OF ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 4 SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS MAY BE CONDONED AND THE APPEALS BE ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION. IT WAS FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS NO PREJUDICE WHICH WILL BE CAUSED TO THE DEPARTMENT AS THE ASSESSEE HAS ALREADY MOVED AN APPLICATION FOR SETTLEMENT OF PRESENT DISPUTE AND PAYMENT OF TAXES. IN SUPPORT RELIANCE WAS PLACED ON THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURTS DECISION IN CASE OF HL MALHOTRA & COMPANY PVT. LTD. VS DCIT CIRCLE-12 NEW DELHI (ITA NO. 211/2020 & CM APPEALS 32045-32047/2020 DATED 22 ND DECEMBER 2020) WHEREIN DELAY OF 498 DAYS IN FILING WAS CONDONED BY THE HONBLE DELHI HIGH COURT AND IT WAS HELD THAT IN ABSENCE OF ANYTHING MALE FIDE OR DELIBERATE DELAY AS A DILATORY TACTIC THE COURT SHOULD NORMALLY CONDONE THE DELAY AS THE INTENT IS ALWAYS TO PROMOTE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE FOLLOWING THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS IN THE CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION ANANTNAG & ANR. VS MST. KATIJI AND OTHERS (1987) 2 SCC 107 AND N. BALAKRISHNAN VS M. KRISHNAMURTHY 1998 (7) SCC 123. 7. PER CONTRA THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THERE IS A SUBSTANTIAL DELAY OF 43 DAYS IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPLICATION SO FILED BY THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT REFLECT ANY REASONABLE CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. SHE ACCORDINGLY OPPOSED CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS. ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 5 8. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PURUSED THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON RECORD. THERE IS NO DISPUTE AND IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THERE HAS BEEN A DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS BY 43 DAYS. THERE IS ALSO NO DISPUTE THAT UNDER SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT THE TRIBUNAL MAY ADMIT AN APPEAL FILED BEYOND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION WHERE IT IS SATISFIED THAT THERE EXISTS A SUFFICIENT CAUSE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. THE EXPLANATION OF THE ASSESSEE THEREFORE BECOMES RELEVANT TO DETERMINE WHETHER THE SAME REFLECTS SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE ON ITS PART IN NOT PRESENTING THE PRESENT APPEAL WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME. IN THE INSTANT CASE IT HAS BEEN STATED BY THE ASSESSEE THAT DUE TO THE FACT THAT THE PRINCIPAL OF THE SCHOOL WAS BUSY IN ELECTION DUTY SO CANNOT ABLE CONTACT TO ITS C.A. FOR FILING APPEALS BUT AFTER ELECTION DUTY HE FILED THE APPEALS. SAWAR IS VILLAGE WHERE THE SCHOOL EXISTS AND IT TAKES TIME TO CONTACT CA. 9. IN CASE OF COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION VS MST KATIJI (SUPRA) THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT HAS HELD THAT THE EXPRESSION SUFFICIENT CAUSE EMPLOYED BY THE LEGISLATURE IS ADEQUATELY ELASTIC TO ENABLE THE COURTS TO APPLY THE LAW IN A MEANINGFUL MANNER TO SUB-SERVES THE ENDS OF JUSTICE THAT BEING THE LIFE-PURPOSE OF THE EXISTENCE OF THE INSTITUTION OF COURTS. IT WAS FURTHER HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT SUCH LIBERAL APPROACH IS ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 6 ADOPTED ON ONE OF THE PRINCIPLES THAT REFUSING TO CONDONE DELAY CAN RESULT IN A MERITORIOUS MATTER BEING THROWN OUT AT THE VERY THRESHOLD AND CAUSE OF JUSTICE BEING DEFEATED. AS AGAINST THIS WHEN DELAY IS CONDONED THE HIGHEST THAT CAN HAPPEN IS THAT A CAUSE WOULD BE DECIDED ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE PARTIES. ANOTHER PRINCIPLE LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IS THAT WHEN SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVES TO BE PREFERRED FOR THE OTHER SIDE CANNOT CLAIM TO HAVE VESTED RIGHT IN INJUSTICE BEING DONE BECAUSE OF A NON-DELIBERATE DELAY. IT WAS ALSO HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT THAT THERE IS NO PRESUMPTION THAT DELAY IS OCCASIONED DELIBERATELY OR ON ACCOUNT OF CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE OR ON ACCOUNT OF MALE FIDES. A LITIGANT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO DELAY. IN FACT HE RUNS A SERIOUS RISK. IN THE INSTANT CASE APPLYING THE SAME PRINCIPLES WE FIND THAT THERE IS NO CULPABLE NEGLIGENCE OR MALAFIDE ON THE PART OF THE ASSESSEE IN DELAYED FILING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL AND IT DOES NOT STAND TO BENEFIT BY RESORTING TO SUCH DELAY MORE SO CONSIDERING THE FACT THAT IT HAS APPLIED FOR SETTLEMENT OF PRESENT DISPUTE AND PAYMENT OF APPROPRIATE TAXES. THEREFORE IN THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE PRESENT CASE WE FIND THAT THERE EXISTS SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE CAUSE FOR CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEAL AND AS HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT WHERE SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE AND TECHNICAL ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 7 CONSIDERATIONS ARE PITTED AGAINST EACH OTHER THE CAUSE OF SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE DESERVED TO BE PREFERRED. 10. IN LIGHT OF AFORESAID DISCUSSIONS IN EXERCISE OF POWERS UNDER SECTION 253(5) OF THE ACT WE HEREBY CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE PRESENT APPEALS AS WE ARE SATISFIED THAT THERE WAS SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT PRESENTING THE APPEALS WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED TIME AND THE APPEALS ARE HEREBY ADMITTED FOR ADJUDICATION ON MERITS. 11. SINCE THE ASSESSEE HAS APPLIED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THESE APPEALS ON THE GROUND THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS OPTED VIVAD SE VISHWAS SCHEME AND THE DEPARTMENT HAS ISSUED FORM NO. 3 THEREFORE WE PERMIT THE ASSESSEE TO WITHDRAW THESE APPEALS. 12. IN THE RESULT ALL THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17/03/2021. SD/- SD/- LANHI XKSLKBZ FOE FLAG ;KNO ( SANDEEP GOSAIN ) (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) U;KF;D LNL;@ JUDICIAL MEMBER YS[KK LNL;@ ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TK;IQJ@ JAIPUR FNUKAD@ DATED:- 17/03/2021 * RANJAN VKNS'K DH IZFRFYFI VXZSFKR@ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. VIHYKFKHZ@ THE APPELLANT- GOVT. SENIOR UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL SAWAR AJMER. ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425/JP/2018 GOVT. SR. UPADHAYAY SANSKRIT SCHOOL VS ACIT(TDS) 8 2. IZR;FKHZ@ THE RESPONDENT- THE A.C.I.T. CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD. 3. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT 4. VK;DJ VK;QDR@ CIT(A) 5. FOHKKXH; IZFRFUF/K] VK;DJ VIHYH; VF/KDJ.K] T;IQJ@ DR ITAT JAIPUR. 6. XKMZ QKBZY@ GUARD FILE {ITA NO. 1423 TO 1425 /JP/2018} VKNS'KKUQLKJ@ BY ORDER LGK;D IATHDKJ@ ASST. REGISTRAR