SHRI JATINDER KUMAR S/O SHRI KEWAL SINGH, PHILLAUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PHAGWARA

ITA 120/ASR/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7845 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 month(s) 25 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 22-06-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: PANKAJ BHALLA LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Time period of passing order; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI. N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 120/ASR/2020 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SH. JATINDER KUMAR, S/O SH. KEWAL SINGH, H. NO. B-2, MOHALLA CHARAJA, PHILLAUR [PAN NO: AULPK 5421G] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PHAGWARA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. PANKAJ BHALLA (LD. C.A .) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 17.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2020 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 17-10-2019, PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A)-2, JALANDHAR U/S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FOR THE AFORESAID ASSES SMENT YEAR, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE, ON NON-PROSECUTION. 2. AT THE OUTSET IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 90 DAYS IN FILLING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL, WH ICH HAS BEEN EXPLAINED BY THE ASSESSEE BY SUBMITTING THAT DUE TO COVI D 19 PANDEMIC, THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FILE THE INSTANT APPEAL WITHIN ITA NO. 350/ASR/2019 JATINDER KUMAR V . ITO 2 THE LIMITATION PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW FOR FILLING O F THE APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE FURTHER SUBMITTED THAT THE APEX COURT EXTEN DED THE LIMITATION PERIOD FOR FILLING OF APPEAL ETC. DUR ING THE PANDEMIC PERIOD. IMMEDIATELY AFTER OVER OF LOCKDOWN, THE ASSESSE E FILED THE INSTANT APPEAL AND THEREFORE THE DELAY OF 90 DA YS IS BONA FIDE AND UNINTENTIONAL AND THEREFORE PRAYED FOR COND ONATION OF THE SAME. LD. DR DID NOT REFUTE THE ASSESSEES CLAIM QUA CONDONATION OF DELAY. HAVING HEARD AND CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSION OF THE P ARTIES QUA CONDONATION OF DELAY. THE APEX COURT BY EXERCISING POWERS UNDER ARTICLE 142 READ WITH ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONST ITUTION OF INDIA, VIDE ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 PASSED IN SUO MOTU WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) NO.(S) 3/2020, WHILE CONSIDERING THE ISSUE QUA LIMITATION IN FILING PETITIONS/APPLICATIONS/SUITS/APP EALS/ALL OTHER PROCEEDINGS WITHIN THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE GENERAL LAW OF LIMITATION OR UNDER SPECIAL LAWS (BOTH CENTRAL AND/OR STATE) UNDER THE SITUATION FACED BY THE COUNTRY ON ACCOUNT OF COVID-19 VIRUS AND RESULTANT DIFFICULTIES THAT MAY BE FACED BY LITIGANTS ACROSS THE COUNTRY, IN ALL SUCH PROCEED INGS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE GEN ERAL LAW OR SPECIAL LAWS WHETHER CONDONABLE OR NOT, EXTENDED THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION W.E.F. 15TH MARCH 2020 TILL FURTHER ORDER /S TO BE PASSED BY THE APEX COURT IN THE SAID PROCEEDINGS. FOR READY REFERENCE THE RELEVANT PART OF ORDER IS REPRODUCED BELOW: TO OBVIATE SUCH DIFFICULTIES AND TO ENSURE THAT LAWYERS/LITIGANTS DO NOT HAVE TO COME PHYSICALLY TO FILE SUCH 2 PROCEEDINGS IN RESPECTIVE COURTS/TRIBUNALS ACROSS T HE COUNTRY INCLUDING THIS COURT, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED THAT A P ERIOD OF LIMITATION IN ALL SUCH PROCEEDINGS, IRRESPECTIVE OF THE LIMITATION PRESCRIBED UNDER THE GENERAL LAW OR SPEC IAL LAWS ITA NO. 350/ASR/2019 JATINDER KUMAR V . ITO 3 WHETHER CONDONABLE OR NOT SHALL STAND EXTENDED W.E. F. 15TH MARCH 2020 TILL FURTHER ORDER/S TO BE PASSED BY THI S COURT IN PRESENT PROCEEDINGS. WE ARE EXERCISING THIS POWER UNDER ARTICLE 142 READ WITH ARTICLE 141 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA AND D ECLARE THAT THIS ORDER IS A BINDING ORDER WITHIN THE MEANING OF ARTICLE 141 ON ALL COURTS/TRIBUNALS AND AUTHORITIES. THIS ORDER MAY BE BROUGHT TO THE NOTICE OF ALL HIGH COURTS FOR BEING COMMUNICATED TO ALL SUBORDINATE COURTS/TRIBUNALS WITHIN THEIR RESPECTIVE JURISDICTI ON. CONSIDERING THE REASON OF DELAY AS BONAFIDE, GENUINE AND REASONABLE AND THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES NARRATE D ABOVE AND THE ORDER DATED 23-03-2020 (SUPRA) PASSED BY THE APEX COURT, WE FIND IT JUSTIFIABLE TO CONDONE THE DEL AY OF 90 DAYS IN FILLING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. RESULTANTLY, THE A PPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. 3. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE CASE, FROM THE IMPUGNED O RDER IT REFLECTS THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES, HOWEVER ON MOST OF THE DATES, THE ASS ESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND THEREFORE THE LD. CIT( A) WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT/ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED I N PURSUING ITS APPEAL, DISMISSED THE SAME. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. THE APPELLANT MOST OF THE TIMES, DI D NOT BOTHER ITSELF TO APPEAR AND CO-ORDINATE WITH APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER AFFORDING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES. ALTHOUGH ITA NO. 350/ASR/2019 JATINDER KUMAR V . ITO 4 THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAW DOES N OT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTIVE AND SLEEPS OVER HIS RIGHTS BY ALLO WING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, W ITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. THE, PRINCIPLE WHICH F ORMS THE BASIS OF THIS RULE IS EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT (LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS), B UT EVEN A VIGILANT LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BE HAVIOR THAN AN ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF T HE JUDICATURE PERMANENTLY CLOSED BEFORE HIM. THE EFFORT O F THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SH UTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDICTION BEFORE A PARTY WHO SEEKS JUSTIC E, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHET HER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT , HENCE WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH ON MERITS, WHILE AFFORDING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/AP PELLANT, IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE ALSO FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT TO EXTEND ITS FULL CO-OPERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS AND WHEN REQUIRED AND IN CASE OF FURTHER DEFAULT, T HE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LENIENCY. ITA NO. 350/ASR/2019 JATINDER KUMAR V . ITO 5 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.0 8.2020. SD/- SD/- ( N. K. SAINI ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.08.2020 GP/SR.PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A) (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER