M/S GRAND LILLY MOTELS LIMITED 4, JALANDHAR V. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR

ITA 144/ASR/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0780 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 20-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 19-03-2018
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice; Audi alteram partem
• Section: 143(3); 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N. K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I. T. A. NO. 144/ASR/2018 ASSES SMENT YEAR: 2013-14 GRAND LILLY MOTELS LIMITED, 4, MODEL TOWN, JALANDHAR CITY. [PAN: AABCG 4527E] VS. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-3, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 20.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.03.2019 ORDER PER SANJAY ARORA, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE ARISING OUT OF TH E ORDER BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR ( CIT(A) FOR SHORT) DATED 19.01.2018, DISMISSING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL CONTES TING ITS ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) R/W SECTION 144 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, 1961 ('THE ACT' HEREINAFTER) VIDE ORDER DATED 17.02.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY ) 2013-14. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT MOTION MADE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING FOR THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, I.E., 10/12/2018, WHI CH WAS SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST AT THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN FORM 36, HAVING COME BA CK UNSERVED WITH THE POSTAL REMARKS LEFT WITHOUT ADDRESS, THE HEARING WAS IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE ADJOURNED ITA NO. 144/ASR/2018 (AY 2013-14) GRAND LILLY MOTELS LIM ITED V. ASST. CIT 2 TO 20/3/2019, DIRECTING THE REGISTRY TO CAUSE SERVI CE THROUGH THE COUNSEL, SH. R.K. BAJAJ, ADVOCATE, WHOSE ADDRESS IS ALSO ON RECORD. T HE SAME STANDS DELIVERED INASMUCH AS THE NOTICE, SENT PER REGISTERED POST ON 22/2/2019, HAS NOT COME BACK UNDELIVERED. THE APPEAL BEING ALSO DEFECTIVE, ATTEM PT WAS ALSO MADE BY THE REGISTRY (VIDE LETTER DATED 30/5/2018), ON BEING UN ABLE TO COMMUNICATE DIRECT WITH THE ASSESSEE; THE POSTAL REMARKS TO THE SAME EFFECT HAVING BEEN RECEIVED EARLIER AS WELL, TO CAUSE THE REMOVAL OF THE DEFECTS, DULY COM MUNICATING THE SAME, THROUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER (I.E., ASST. CIT, CIRCLE 3, J ALANDHAR), TO THOUGH NO AVAIL. THIS ALL WAS WITH THE VIEW TO AFFORD OPPORTUNITY AND OBS ERVE THE PRINCIPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . THE APPEAL WAS ACCORDINGLY TAKEN AS HEARD. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOW N DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. THE PRINCIPLE HA S BEEN INVOKED IN MANY A DECISION, AS: ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJI RAO HOLKAR V. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP); CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P.) LTD. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (DEL), DISMISSING THE APPEALS IN LIMINE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. REFERENCE HERE MAY ALSO B E DRAWN TO THE DECISION IN CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), WHEREIN IT STANDS CLARIFIED THAT PREFERRING AN APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING THE APPEAL PAPERS, BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. THE APEX COURT HAS PER ITS RECENT LARGER BENCH DECISION IN RAM SIROMANI TRIPATHI & ORS. VS. STATE OF UP (IN CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 9142-9144 OF 2010 & CA NO.6156/2012, DATED 07.2.201 9 (COPY ON RECORD), DISMISSED THE APPEALS IN LIMINE REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON THE GROUND THAT THE COUNSEL WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURT BUT, AS STATED, OUT OF STATION. THE APEX COURT WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEAL S MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WOULD NOT RESTORE THE APPEALS. ITA NO. 144/ASR/2018 (AY 2013-14) GRAND LILLY MOTELS LIM ITED V. ASST. CIT 3 4. NEITHER HAS THERE BEEN ANY REPRESENTATION IN THI S CASE, I.E., SINCE THE FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 11/5/2018, NOR THE DEFECTS REMOVED, T O DATE, DESPITE ALLOWANCE OF SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITY. THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION EVEN BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A), EVEN AS THE AUTHORIZED PERSON ATTENDED ON ONE DATE (21/12/2017), INDICATIVE OF THE APPELLANT BEING AWARE OF PROCEEDINGS BEING ON BEFOR E THE SAID AUTHORITY, THOUGH SOUGHT DATE. THE LD. CIT(A), ACCORDINGLY, OBSERVING THE IMPUGNED ADDITION (RS. 34,10,531) TO BE BY APPLYING THE SAME CONSUMPTION R ATIO AS ADOPTED FOR EARLIER YEARS, WHICH STOOD CONFIRMED BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS WE LL AS BY HIM FOR OTHER YEARS, CONFIRMED THE ADDITION; THERE BEING NO CHANGE IN TH E FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE. THE PRINCIPLES OF NATURAL JUSTICE HAVE BEEN, AS IT APPEARS, DULY OBSERVED BY THE REVENUE AUTHORITIES, AS WELL AS BY THE TRIBUNAL . EVEN THE DEFECTS HAVE NOT BEEN REMOVED. THE APPEAL IS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NO T LIABLE TO BE ADMITTED. WE DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 26, 201 9 SD/- SD/- (N. K. CHOUDHRY) (SANJAY ARORA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 26.03.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: GRAND LILLY MOTELS LIMITED 4 , MODEL TOWN, JALANDHAR CITY. (2) THE RESPONDENT: THE ASST. CIT, CIRCLE-3, JA LANDHAR. (3) THE CIT(APPEALS)-2, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED TRUE COPY (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. BY ORDER