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

  • bankruptcy

Resolution plan to include a statement of beneficial-ownership of all natural persons

Every resolution plan to include a statement of beneficial-ownership of all natural persons who ultimately owns or controls the resolution…

7 hours ago
  • bankruptcy

Change in the address of DRAT, Allahabad with effect from 11.12.2025

Change in the address of Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal, Allahabad with effect from 11.12.2025 Ministry of Finance(Department of Financial Service)…

7 hours ago
  • DGFT

Banks authorised to import only gold for FY 2025-26 from 01.04.2025 to 31.03.2026

Updated list of banks authorised by Reserve Bank of India to import only gold for FY 2025-26 with effect from…

22 hours ago
  • Income Tax

Under POCM, selling/Admin costs allowable despite no revenue declared – ITAT

Under percentage completion method, selling/Admin costs are allowable despite no revenue declared as per guidance note of ICAI. In a…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

AO can’t use reverse computation using TDS amount for disallowance u/s 40(a)(ia)

AO cannot use reverse computation of gross payment using TDS amount to determine the amount disallowable u/s 40(a)(ia) - ITAT…

2 days ago
  • Income Tax

Once loans is repaid in subsequent years, addition u/s 68 cannot be made

Once loans were repaid in subsequent assessment years with cogent evidences then the addition u/s 68 of the Income Tax…

3 days ago