Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2022 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE P.S. DINESH KUMAR AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE UMESH M. ADIGA INCOME TAX APPEAL NO. 581 OF 2017
BETWEEN :
SRI. INDUDHAR PROP: INDU TRADERS NO.21/1, CHOWKIPET DAVANGERE-577 001 …APPELLANT
(BY SHRI. S. ANNAMALAI, ADVOCATE)
AND :
INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1, PARK VIEW BUILDING 4TH MAIN, P.J. EXTENSION DAVANAGERE-577 002 …RESPONDENT
(BY SHRI. M. DILIP ADVOCATE FOR SHRI. K.V. ARAVIND, STANDING COUNSEL) . . . . THE ITA IS FILED UNDER SECTION 260-A OF INCOME TAX ACT 1961, ARISING OUT OF ORDER DATED 22.03.2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.2281/BANG/2016, FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 PRAYING TO FORMULATE THE SUBSTANTIAL QUESTION OF LAW AS STATED THEREIN AND ANSWER THE SAME IN FAVOUR OF THE APPELLANT AND ETC.
THIS ITA COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING THIS DAY, P.S. DINESH KUMAR J, DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:-
2 JUDGMENT
This appeal by the assessee challenging the order dated 22.03.2017 in ITA No.2281/Bang/2016 has been admitted to consider the following questions of law.
"1. Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay, when the appellant has demonstrated that there was reasonable cause for the delay on the facts and circumstances of the case?
Whether the Tribunal was justified in law in not condoning the delay by misunderstanding the facts and consequently passed a perverse order on the facts and circumstances of the case?
Whether the Tribunal is right in not adjudicating the grounds on the merits raised by the Appellant?
Heard Shri. S. Annamalai learned Advocate for the Assessee and Shri. Dilip M, learned Standing Counsel for the Revenue.
Brief facts of the case are, the return filed by the assessee for A.Y.2009-10 was processed under
3 Section 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ('Act' for short). It was selected for scrutiny and Assessment Order was passed on November 28, 2011. Subsequently, vide order dated May 05, 2012, penalty has been imposed.
Assessee challenged the Assessment Order dated 28.11.2011 before CIT(A) with a delay of 1468 days. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal on the ground of delay. The ITAT has also dismissed the appeal challenging CIT(A)'s order.
Shri. Annamalai
for the assessee, submitted that assessee was assured by the Assessing Officer that no penalty would be imposed. However, the Assessing Officer has passed order under Section 271(1)(c) imposing penalty. Therefore, Assessee challenged the said order before CIT(A) and the
4 CIT(A), allowing the appeal in part has reduced the quantum of penalty. 6. Shri. Annamalai contended that assessee has a very good case on merits. The CIT(A) and the ITAT have dismissed the appeals on delay. Accordingly, he prayed for considering the question of law raised with regard to dismissal of appeal on the ground of delay and also to consider the appeal on merits.
Shri. Dilip, for the Revenue argued opposing the appeal.
We have carefully considered rival contentions and perused the records.
Undisputed facts of the case are, Assessment Order was passed on 28.11.2011. Assessee has challenged the same before CIT(A) after 1468 days. The reasons for the delay is stated in para
5 3 of the Statement of facts filed before CIT(A), which reads as follows:
"It was explained to the A.O during the course of hearing to the best of the capacity but, the A.O insisted that he would make the addition and levy penalty and initiate prosecution also and wanted the appellant to accept the additions/disallowance in writing. With no other go, the appellant had given a consent letter on the fond hope that atleast no penalties would not be levied as the appellant is a trader with reasonable means and did not want to have his business affected for his livelihood on this score. Therefore, under the intolerant conditions, consent was accorded by the appellant."
The CIT(A) placing reliance on Commissioner, Nagar Parishad Bhilwara Vs. Labour Court, Bhilwara and another1 has dismissed the appeal and the ITAT has upheld the said order.
The reason shown by the assessee that Assessing Officer had insisted to make certain additions and with the hope that no penalty would be
1 (2009)3 SCC 525
6 imposed, the assessee gave a consent letter, is not acceptable. Hence, no exception can be taken to the orders passed by the CIT(A) and ITAT.
Resultantly, this appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.
No costs.
Sd/- JUDGE
Sd/- JUDGE
SPS