CSB Bank Ltd (Formerly the Caholic Syrian Bank Ltd), Kundara Branch ,Tvm v. The ACIT CPC-TDS,, , Ghaziabad

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL COCHIN BENCH COCHIN BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJAR I AM & SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K JM ITA NO. 5 46 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (24Q - Q 2 ) ITA NO. 5 47 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (2 4 Q - Q4) ITA NO. 5 48 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (2 6 Q - Q 2 ) ITA NO. 5 49 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (27Q - Q 2 ) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) KILIKOLLUR BRANCH KOLLAM 691 004. PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5 50 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 201 5 - 201 6 (24Q - Q 2 ) ITA NO. 5 51 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2013 - 2014 (2 6 Q - Q 2 ) ITA NO. 552 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 2012 - 2013 (27Q - Q2) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) KUNDARA BRANCH KOLLAM 691 501. PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX CPC (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO. 5 53 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 201 4 - 201 5 (24Q - Q 2 ) ITA NO. 5 54 /COCH/201 9 : A.Y. 201 4 - 201 5 (26Q - Q 2 ) M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED (FORMERLY KNOWN AS CATHOLIC SYRIAN BANK LIMITED) PUTHIYAKAVU BRANCH KOLLAM 690 544. PAN : AABCT0024D. VS. THE ASST.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME - TAX (TDS) GHAZIABAD. ( APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) ITA NO.5 46 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED. 2 APPELLANT BY : - -- NONE --- RESPONDENT BY : SMT.A.S.BINDHU SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 14 .1 1 .2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 14 .1 1 .2019 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K JM THESE APPEALS AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST DIFFERENT ORDERS OF THE CIT(A). THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEARS ARE 201 2 - 201 3 TO 2015 - 2016. SINCE COMMON ISSUES ARE RAISED IN THESE APPEALS THEY WERE HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATE ORDER. 2. BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE AS FOLLOWS: THE DY.CIT CENTRALIZED PROCESSING CELL (CPC) TDS RANGE GHAZIABAD UTTAR PRADESH FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2012 - 2013 2013 - 2014 2014 - 2015 AND 2015 - 2016 HAD PASSED ORDERS U/S 200A OF THE I.T.ACT AND LEVIED INTEREST U/S 234E OF THE I.T.ACT. 3. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS PASSED LEVYING INTEREST U/S 234E OF THE I.T.ACT THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED APPEALS TO THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY. THERE WAS DELAY IN FILING APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST A PPELLATE A UTHORITY. IN ALL THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE FIRST APP ELLATE AUTHORITY THERE WAS DELAY OF 1000 TO 1700 DAYS. THE CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE HIM AND DID NOT DECIDE THE ISSUE ON MERITS. ITA NO.5 46 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED. 3 4. AGGRIEVED BY THE ORDERS OF THE CIT(A) IN REJE CTING THE ASSESSEES APPEALS IN LIMINE WITHOUT CONDONING THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER WE PROCEED TO DISPOSE OF THE CASE AFTER HEARING THE LEA RNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE. THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY IS EXPLAINED BY STATING THAT THE OFFICER HANDLING THE TDS ISSUE WAS TRANSFERRED FROM THE CONCERNED BRANCH AND THE HEAD OFFICE SUBSEQUENTL Y NOTICED THE NEED OF FILING THE APPEALS AND HENCE THE APPEALS WERE FILED BELATEDLY. 5. THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE PRESENT SUBMITTED THAT THE ISSUE IN QUESTION IS COVERED BY THE ORDERS OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE IN ITA NO.341/COC H/2018 & ORS. (ORDER DATED 08.10.2018). IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE CITED SUPRA HAD CONFIRMED THE CIT(A)S ORDERS WHEREIN THE ASSESSEES APPEALS WERE DISMISSED BY THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY WITHOUT CONDO NING THE DELAY. THEREFORE IT WAS SUBMITTED BY THE LEARNED DR THAT THE FACTS BEING IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA THESE APPEALS MAY BE REJECTED IN LIMINE SINCE THERE WAS NO JUSTIFIABLE REASONS FOR FILING THE APPEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A) BELATEDLY. 6 . WE HAVE HEARD THE LEARNED DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE AND PERUSED THE MATERIAL ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN AFFIDAVIT BEFORE THE CIT(A) STATING THEREIN THE REASONS FOR ITA NO.5 46 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED. 4 BELATED FILING OF APPEALS BEFORE HIM. IDENTICAL REASONS ARE GIVEN IN ALL THE APPEALS FILED BEFORE THE CIT(A). THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE CITED SUPRA HAVE CONSIDERED AN IDENTICAL ISSUE AND HAS CONFIRMED THE CIT(A)S ORDER IN REJECTING THE ASSESSEES PETITION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE R ELEVANT FINDING OF THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE (SUPRA) READS AS FOLLOW: - 6. IN THE PRESENT CASE THERE WERE NO AFFIDAVITS FROM THE CONCERNED PERSONS WHO ARE HANDLING THE IMPUGNED ISSUES AND WHO ARE REQUIRED TO TAKE PROPER STEPS IN FILING THE AP PEALS BEFORE THE CIT(A). IN OUR OPINION THE DECISION OF THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH IS WITHOUT DOUBT BINDING UPON US AND WE ARE BOUND TO FOLLOW IT. HOWEVER IN THE PRESENT CASE THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL CITED SUPRA DOES NOT GIVE ANY SUCH BLANKET DIRECTION A S SUBMITTED BY THE LD. AR TO CONDONE THE DELAY AS IT DOES NOT IN ANY WAY FETTER THE TRIBUNAL FROM EXERCISING ITS DISCRETION TO CONDONE OR NOT TO CONDONE THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS. THE CONDONATION PETITION WILL HAVE TO BE CASE SPECIFIC AND THE ORDER O F THE TRIBUNAL CITED BY THE LD. AR CANNOT BE READ SO AS TO IGNORE THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASES. THUS THE SUBMISSION OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL CANNOT BE ACCEPTED THAT THE DELAY IN FILING THE APPEALS BY THE ASSESSEE HAS TO BE CONDONED. THEREFORE ACCORDING TO US EACH CASE FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY WOULD HAVE TO BE DECIDED ON THE BASIS OF THE EXPLANATION OFFERED FOR THE DELAY I.E. IS IT BONAFIDE OR NOT CONCOCTED OR NOT OR DOES IT EVIDENCE NEGLIGENCE OR NOT. FURTHER IN THE PRESENT CA SE THE ASSESSEE IS A SCHEDULED BANK SUPPORTED BY A LARGE NUMBER OF PERSONNEL AND ALSO ASSISTED BY QUALIFIED CHARTERED ACCOUNTANTS AND ADVOCATES. THE REASON AS COME OUT FROM THE CONDONATION PETITIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AS STATED EARLIER IS THAT THERE WAS TRANSFER OF THE OFFICER WHO WAS HANDLING THE ISSUE. WE CANNOT ACCEPT SUCH PROPOSITION AS IT CANNOT BE CONSIDERED AS GOOD AND SUFFICIENT REASON TO CONDONE THE DELAY. IT WAS SUBMITTED THAT THE DELAY IS TO BE CONDONED SINCE THE ISSUE ON MERIT COVERED IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE. THIS SUBMISSION IGNORES THE FACT THAT THE OBJECT OF THE LAW OF LIMITATION IS TO BRING CERTAINTY AND FINALITY TO LITIGATION. THIS IS BASED ON THE MAXIM INTEREST REIPUBLICAE SIT FINIS LITIUM I.E. FOR THE GENERAL BENEFIT OF THE COM MUNITY AT LARGE BECAUSE THE OBJECT IS EVERY LEGAL REMEDY MUST BE ALIVE FOR A LEGISLATIVELY FIXED PERIOD OF TIME. THE OBJECT IS TO GET ON WITH LIFE IF YOU HAVE FAILED TO FILE AN APPEAL WITHIN THE PERIOD PROVIDED BY THE STATUTE. IT IS FOR THE GENERAL BEN EFIT OF THE ENTIRE COMMUNITY SO AS TO ENSURE THAT STALE AND OLD MATTERS ARE NOT AGITATED AND ITA NO.5 46 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED. 5 THE PARTY WHO IS AGGRIEVED BY AN ORDER CAN EXPEDITIOUSLY MOVER HIGHER FORUM TO CHALLENGE THE SAME IF HE IS AGGRIEVED BY IT. AS OBSERVED BY THE APEX COURT IN MANY CASES THE LAW ASSIST THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS AS FOUND IN THE MAXIM VILILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT. IN OUR OPINION MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS NOT VIGILANT IT CANNOT FOLLOW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS BESTOWED WITH A RIGHT TO THE DELAY BEING CONDONED. WE ARE CONSCIOUS OF THE FACT THAT THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION SHOULD NOT COME AS AN HINDRANCE TO DO SUBSTANTIAL JUSTICE BETWEEN THE PARTIES. HOWEVER AT THE SAME TIME A PARTY CANNOT SLEEP OVER ITS RIGHT IGNORING THE STATUTE OF LIMITATION AND WITHOUT GIVING SUFFICIENT AND REASONABLE EXPLANATION FOR THE DELAY EXCEPT ITS APPEAL TO BE ENTERTAINED MERELY BECAUSE THE ASSESSEE IS A BANK. APPEALS FILED BEYOND A PERIOD OF LIMITATION HAVE BEEN ENTERTAINED BY US WHERE THE DELAY HAS BEEN SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED SUCH AS IN CASES OF BONAFIDE MISTAKE. THUS THE ASSESSEE SHOULD BE WELL AWARE OF THE STATUTORY PROVISIONS AND THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION AND SHOULD PURSUE ITS REMEDIES DILIGENTLY. IT CANNOT EXPECT THEIR APPEALS BE ENTERTAINED BECAUSE THEY ARE AFTER ALL THE ASSESSEE NOTWITHSTANDING THE FACT THAT DELAY IS NOT SUFFICIENTLY EXPLAINED. HENCE THE DELAY IS NOT CONDONED AND THE APPEALS ARE UNADMITTED. 6 .1 SINCE THE FACTS CONSIDERED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN ASSESSEES OWN CASE AND THE FACTS OF THESE CASES ARE IDENTICAL WE FOLLOW THE CO - ORDINATE BENCH ORDER AND UPHOLD THE FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITYS ORDER IN THESE CASES. IT IS ORDERED ACCORDINGLY. 7 . IN THE RESULT THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THIS 14 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2019 . SD/ - SD/ - ( CHANDRA POOJARI ) ( GEORGE GEORGE K ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER COCHIN ; DATED : 14 TH NOVEMBER 2019 . DEV A DAS G * ITA NO.5 46 /COCH/2019 & ORS . M/S.CSB BANK LIMITED. 6 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : BY ORDER (ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ITAT COCHIN 1. THE APPELLANT. 2. THE RESPONDENT. 3. THE PR.CIT KOCHI. 4. THE J CIT RANGE - 2 THRISSUR. 5. THE DR ITAT COCHIN 6. GUARD FILE.