Failure to Establish Sufficient Cause for not Filling Appeals within the Prescribed Period of Limitation: ITAT upholds Dismissal of Appeals [Read Order]
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Delhi Bench, has recently, in an appeal filed before it, on failure to establish sufficient cause for not filling appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, upheld the dismissal of appeals.
The aforesaid observation was made by the Delhi ITAT, when appeals were preferred before it by the Assessee, out of which the appeal pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 arose out of the order dated 23.03.2022, whereas the appeals pertaining to A.Yrs. 2014-15 & 2017-18 to 2019-20 were directed against the consolidated order of even dated 23.03.2022, passed by the Commissioner of Income tax (Appeals), New Delhi, under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961.
The question involved in these appeals being as to whether the authorities below can be justified in levying interest on late payment of TDS under Section 201(1A) of the Income Tax Act, the brief facts of the case were that that the Assessee was a Third-Party Administrator for insurance companies, who had made payments to various hospitals under cashless scheme on behalf of the insurance companies. And, the CPC-Bangalore vide intimation under Section 154 read with section 200A of the Income Tax Act, charged interest on late payments of TDS upon the assessee, under Section 201(1A) of the Act.
Being aggrieved, the Assessee preferred first appeal before the Commissioner, who vide impugned orders, dismissed the appeal of the Assessee for A.Y. 2013-14 on merits and the appeals for A.Yrs. 2014-15 and 2017-18 to 2019-20 on merits as well as on limitation. And, it is being aggrieved by the same, that the assessee has preferred the instant appeal before the Tribunal.
With no appearance on behalf of the assessee, while Sh. Arvind Bansal, the Sr. DR, submitted his contentions on the RevenueтАЩs behalf, the ITAT observed:
тАЬOn perusal of the above findings of the ld. Commissioner, we observe that the ld. Commissioner while deciding the issue has taken into consideration the settled position of law on this aspect with reference to the provisions of sections 194J and Section 201(1A) of the Act in the light of CBDT Circular No.8/2009 dated 24.11.2009 and the decision of HonтАЩble Delhi High Court, where the Assessee itself was one of the petitioners in Writ Petition(Civil) No. 121 of 2010, wherein it has been held that section 194J applies to the payments made by the petitioners to juristic or corporate entities that are providing professional services and the provisions of section 194J are clearly applicable in Third Party Administrator (TPA) cases. In fact, all the contentions of the Assessee raised before the ld. Commissioner have been properly considered by the first appellate authority in the impugned order and even otherwise, we do not find any reason and/or material to contradict the decision made by the ld. Commissioner on the merits of the issue. Hence, the impugned order does not call for any interference on this count.тАЭ
тАЬAdverting to the dismissal of appeals for A.Yrs. 2014-15 and 2017-18 to 2019-20 as barred by limitation by the Ld. Commissioner, we observe that there was huge delay in filling of these appeals before the Ld. Commissioner. And the Ld. Commissioner, by considering the delay period and contentions of the Assessee, declined to condone the delay in filling of such appealsтАЭ, the ITAT added.
тАЬIn our considered view, once the ld. Commissioner declined to condone the delay in filling of the appeal being time barred by limitation, then there is no need to go into merits of the case, vice versa, once the Ld. Commissioner decided the appeals on merits then the inference can be drawn that delay if any, in filling of appeal is condoned and the appeal is admitted. The HonтАЩble Madras High Court in the case of Vijayeswari Textiles Ltd vs. CIT, also dealt with an issue, where the Tribunal had refused to condone the delay, but disposed off the appeal on merits also. The HonтАЩble Madras High Court held that if the appeal is adjudicated on merits, then refusing to condone the delay is an errorтАЭ, the Coram of Anil Chaturvedi, the Accountant Member, and N.K Choudhary, the Judicial Member further observed.
Thus, dismissing the AssesseeтАЩs appeals, the ITAT finally concluded:
тАЬComing to the instant case, as the ld. Commissioner first should have decided the issue qua condonation of delay in filling of the appeals and on satisfying that the Assessee has failed to establish sufficient cause for not filling the appeals within the prescribed period of limitation, the appeals should have been dismissed at the very threshold only on the point of limitation, whatsoever once the appeals decided on merit, then there was no need to go into the controversy qua limitation and to decline the condonation of delay, hence we are inclined not to approve such view, however as we have already dealt with the findings on merit of the case by the ld. Commissioner and therefore decision of the ld. Commissioner on merit is upheld.тАЭ
To Read the full text of the Order CLICK HERE
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscanpremium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
Medsave Health Insurance vs ACIT, CPC, TDS, Ghaziabad.
CITATION: 2023 TAXSCAN (ITAT) 858
Be the First to get the Best
Join Our email list to get the latest Tax Updates , Special Offers, Events delivered right to your Inbox
Email Address *
aniltikotekar4sme.com 