Income Tax

There is no concept of pre bargaining under Income Tax Act – ITAT dismisses appeal for delay

There is no concept of pre bargaining under Income Tax Act – ITAT dismisses delayed quantum appeal filed after initiation of penalty proceedings

ABCAUS Case Law Citation:
ABCAUS 2863 (2019) (04) ITAT

Important Case Laws Cited/relied upon by the parties
Collector, Land Acquisition v. Mst. Katiji [1987] 167 ITR 471
CIT vs West Bengal Infrastructure Development Finance Corporation Ltd. 334 ITR 269

The assessee had filed an appeal before the Tribunal with a delay of 696 days alongwith an application for condonation of delay along with affidavit.

In application filed by assessee, it was stated that assessee was advised of chances of getting relief in further appeal to be remote, in view of surrender made during assessment proceedings.

It was submitted that the assessee did not prefer appeal against quantum proceedings also for the reason that assessee had expected penalty proceedings will not be initiated against assesseee. However, subsequently penalty was levied on same issue for year under consideration and was decided against assessee.

It was further submitted that at that point of time, filing of appeal against quantum addition before the Tribunal was advised by the then Counsel who was familiar with Income Tax litigations. This caused the delay of 696 days.

Placing reliance upon decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court it was stated that the delay occurred due to lack of knowledge of assessee about intricacies of tax law.

The Tribunal opined that the reason cited by assessee in application for condonation of delay did not inspire any confidence. The reasoning for not filing appeal in quantum proceedings before the Tribunal, do not amount to be ‘sufficient cause’ in order to apply the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

The Tribunal observed that apparently the assessee took conscious decision not to prefer appeal against quantum proceedings before this Tribunal. And also that, there is no concept of ‘pre bargaining’ under Income Tax Act.

The Tribunal opined that reasons shown by assessee, did not fall within parameters of sufficient cause so as to confer benefit of condonation of delay. Because, assessee took a well considered decision not to take up further proceedings against quantum order and therefore he did not approach any other litigating professional even after huge addition that was confirmed by CIT (A).

As a result, the ITAT dismissed condonation application.

Download Full Judgment Click Here >>

Share

Recent Posts

  • Income Tax

Section 292C carry no presumption of correctness of seized documents contents against third party

Section 292C of the Income Tax Act 1961 indeed carries presumption of correctness of such seized documents contents but only…

41 minutes ago
  • Income Tax

Condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) for filing revised return to avail benefits u/s 44ADA

PCIT directed to consider condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) in filing revised return to availing benefits of section 44ADA In…

3 hours ago
  • arbitration

Whether condition of pre-deposit prior to reference to Arbitration is arbitrary & violative of right to sue?

Whether condition of pre-deposit prior to reference to Arbitration is arbitrary and violative of the right to sue – Division…

6 hours ago
  • Income Tax

FAQs on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026

Frequently asked Questions on Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers Disclosure Scheme and Rule 2026.  CBDT has released a FAQs on…

3 days ago
  • Income Tax

Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers- Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026 notified

Foreign Assets of Small Taxpayers- Disclosure Scheme Rules 2026 notified. Rule come into force on the 16th day of August,…

3 days ago
  • GST

Order u/s 69 of the CGST Act has to be communicated before arrest of person concerned– SC

Order u/s 69 of the CGST Act authorising arrest of a person has to be communicated to him before arrest–…

5 days ago