2022 (11) TMI 23 - HC - Income Tax

Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - HELD THAT - The reason shown by the assessee that AO had insisted to make certain additions and with the hope that no penalty would be 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. Appeal must fail and it is accordingly dismissed.

Summary

Issues:
1. Delay condonation by the Tribunal
2. Adjudication of grounds on merits by the Tribunal

Delay Condonation by the Tribunal:
The appellant challenged an order regarding delay in filing an appeal, raising questions on the Tribunal's justification in not condoning the delay. The appellant argued that there was a reasonable cause for the delay due to assurances from the Assessing Officer. The CIT(A) dismissed the appeal based on the delay of 1468 days, which was also upheld by the ITAT. The appellant contended that the delay was due to the Assessing Officer's insistence on accepting certain additions to avoid penalties. However, the Court found this reason unacceptable, citing precedents, and upheld the dismissal of the appeal based on delay.

Adjudication of Grounds on Merits by the Tribunal:
The appellant also raised concerns about the Tribunal not adjudicating the grounds on merits. The appellant claimed to have a strong case on merits, which the CIT(A) and ITAT did not consider due to the focus on the delay issue. Despite the appellant's arguments, the Court found that the reasons provided for the delay were not acceptable, and therefore, there was no basis to challenge the orders passed by the CIT(A) and ITAT. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, emphasizing that no exception could be taken to the previous orders.

In conclusion, the Court dismissed the appeal, stating that the delay in filing the appeal was not justified based on the reasons provided by the appellant. The Court upheld the decisions of the CIT(A) and ITAT, emphasizing that the appellant's reliance on assurances from the Assessing Officer did not warrant condonation of the delay. The Court's decision was based on legal precedents and the facts of the case, ultimately leading to the rejection of the appeal without costs.