M/s Citrus Estate, Fazilka V. The Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandigarh

ITA 175/ASR/2015

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 127 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7877 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 4 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 11-08-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 21-06-2017
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 06-04-2015
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA LD
• Section: 12AA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR BEFORE SH.T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH.N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NOS.175 & 183(ASR)/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: CITRUS ESTATE, VPO, TAHLIWALA JATTAN, DIST: FAZILKA. PAN:AABAC-2728D VS. THE CIT, (EXEMPTION) CHANDIGARH. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. P.N.ARORA (LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 01.08.2017 DATE OF PRONOU NCEMENT: 11.08.2017 ORDER PER N. K. CHOUDHRY: BOTH THE APPEALS ARISING OUT FROM THE SAME ORDER DATE D 29.01.2015 PASSED U/S 12AA OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 BY THE CIT(EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH, FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAIN ST THE REJECTION OF ITS APPLICATION U/S 12AA DATED 31 ST JULY, 2014. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED THE FOLLOWING GROUNDS OF APPEAL. 1. THAT THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EX EMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN PASSING ORDER U/S 12AA RE JECTING THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION WITHOUT GIVING PROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING TO THE ASSESSEE. 2. THAT THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPT IONS), CHANDIGARH ERRED ON FACTS AND LAW IN REJECTING THE APPLICATION OF REGISTRATION U/S 12AA BY POINTING OUT SOME DEFECTS IN THE INCOME & EXPEND ITURE ACCOUNT FILED ALONGWITH THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION BUT NO P ROPER OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING WAS PROVIDED TO THE ASSESSEE TO GIVE EXPLAN ATION. 3. IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT AT THE TIME OF DISPOSI NG OFF THE APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATION CIT CAN ONLY MAKE AN INQUIRY REGARDING GENUINENESS OF THE ACTIVITIES/OBJECTS OF THE TRUST OR INSTITUTION. BUT IN THE PRESENT CASE THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTIONS) HAS REJECTE D THE CLAIM OF I TA NO.175 & 183(ASR)/2015 2 REGISTRATION BY MAKING AN INQUIRY REGARDING APPLICA TION OF INCOME AND OTHER REASONS. HENCE THE ORDER PASSED U/S 12AA IS LIABLE TO BE QUA SHED AND THE DEPARTMENT MAY KINDLY BE DIRECTED TO ALLOW REGISTRA TION U/S 12A. 4. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AM END THE GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEARD OR DISPOSED OFF. 3. THE FACTUAL MATRIX OF THE CASE ARE AS UNDER: THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED AN APPLICATION U/S 12AA OF TH E ACT ON 31 ST JULY, 2014 WHICH WAS DISMISSED ON 29 TH JANUARY, 2015 BY THE LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH AND THEREAFTER, ON THE V ERY SAME DAY THE ASSESSEE FILED THE INSTANT APPEALS (I) AT AMRITSAR AN D (II) AT CHANDIGARH, ITAT BENCH. HOWEVER, LATER ON THE APPEAL AT CHANIDGARH BENCH WAS TRANSFERRED TO THE AMRITSAR BENCH A T AMRITSAR, THEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE PROSECUTED BOTH THE APP EALS, HOWEVER, AT THIS STAGE LATER ON 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 THE ASSESSEE ON 1 ST OF JULY, 2006 AND 11 TH AUGUST, 2016 AND LASTLY ON 1 ST OF AUGUST, 2017 THE ASSESSEE PRAYED FOR WITHDRAWAL OF THE SAID APPE ALS ON THE GROUND THAT THE CONTROVERSY IN ISSUE HAS ALREADY BEE N RESTORED BACK TO THE CIT(E), CHANDIGARH BY THIS BENCH, VIDE ORDER DATED 20 TH MAY, 2016 PASSED IN ITA NO.497(ASR)/2014, THEREFORE, THE APPEALS HAVE BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, THEREFORE, THE PR ESENT APPEAL BECOME INFRUCTUOUS, HENCE, THE SAME MAY BE ALLOW ED TO BE DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. 4. WE HAVE GONE THROUGH WITH THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTA NCES OF THE CASE AS WE REALIZE IN THE INSTANT CASE, THE APPLICATION U/ S 12AA OF THE I TA NO.175 & 183(ASR)/2015 3 ASSESSEE WAS REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT, BATHINDA ON DATED 17 TH JULY, 2012 WHICH WAS CHALLENGED BY THE ASSESSEE BEFORE THIS BEN CH VIDE ITA, NO.497(ASR)/2014 AND DURING THE PENDENCY OF THE SAID A PPEALS, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN FILED THE FRESH APPLICATION FOR REGISTRATIO N ON 31 ST JULY, 2014 WHICH WAS ALSO REJECTED BY THE LD. CIT(E), CHANDIG ARH ON 29 TH JAN., 2015 AND THE ASSESSEE ON 21 ST MARCH, 2015 FILED TWO APPEALS ON THE VERY SAME TIME AND DATE CHALLENGING THE SINGLE ORD ER BEFORE TWO BENCHES FIRST AT AMRITSAR AND SECOND AT CHANDIGARH AND TH EREAFTER, ON 19 TH MAY, 2016 EARLIER APPEAL NO.497(ASR)/2015 OF THE ASSE SSEE WAS DECIDED BY THE ITAT, AMRITSAR BENCH WHILE DIRECTING TH E REMAND OF THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE OFFICE OF THE LD. CIT(E) AND T HEREAFTER, THE ASSESSEE PREFERRED TO WITHDRAW THE INSTANT APPEALS AFTER GETTING FAVORABLE ORDER IN ITS FAVOUR. BY FILING TWO APPEAL S AT THE VERY SAME TIME AND DATE AT TWO DIFFERENT JURISDICTIONAL BENCHES AND EV EN OTHERWISE WITHOUT WAITING FOR THE FATE OF THE APPEAL AGAINST P REVIOUS APPEAL AGAINST REJECTION DATED 17.07.2012, U/S 12AA OF THE A CT, THE ASSESSEE MISCHIEVOUSLY AND CLEVERLY ABUSED THE PROCESS OF LAW AND BY NOT MENTIONING THE PREVIOUS REJECTION ORDER DATED 17.07.2 012 IN FRESH APPEALS TRIED TO MISLEAD THE COURT BY FILING TWO APPE ALS AT TWO JURISDICTIONS / BENCHES. FROM THE CONDUCT THE ASSESSEE, IT SHOW S CLEARLY THAT THE ASSESSEE DO NOT HAVE ANY RESPECT OF THE COURT AN D/OR QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHORITIES AND EVEN OTHERWISE LACKS OF THE BA SIC KNOWLEDGE OF LAW AND THE ACTION OF THE ASSESSEE SPECIALLY THE PERSON(S) CO NCERNED WITH THE INSTANT ISSUES/LITIGATION HAVE TRIED TO GET UNDUE ADVANTAGE I TA NO.175 & 183(ASR)/2015 4 WHILE ALSO AMOUNTS TO INTERFERENCE IN THE ADMINISTRATI ON OF JUSTICE. ON BEING ENQUIRED SPECIFICALLY ABOUT THE FILING OF TWO AP PEALS AT THE VERY SAME TIME AND DATE, THE LD. AR SH. P.N. ARORA HAD SH OWN HIS INABILITY TO DISCLOSE THE REASON BY SUBMITTED THAT THE SAME HAD BE EN DONE BY THE PREVIOUS COUNSEL/AR. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CA SE WE LODGE OUR PROTEST AND DISMAY ON THE ACTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WASTI NG THE PRECIOUS TIME OF THE COURT AND/OR QUASI JUDICIAL AUTHOR ITIES AS IT IS REGULARLY AND STRICTLY REMANDED BY THE HONBLE APEX C OURT THAT PRECIOUS TIME OF THE COURT SHOULD BE UTILIZED ONLY FOR THE B ONAFIDE AND GENUINE LITIGATIONS WE GET THAT THESE KINDS OF ACTS ARE REQUIRED TO STERNLY DEALT WITH SPECIALLY IN VIEW OF THE RECENT JUDGMENT. THE APEX COURT RECENTLY REMINDED US HOW TO DEAL WIT H FRIVOLOUS AND GROUNDLESS LITIGATION IN DNYANDEO SAB AJI NAIK & ANR VERUS MRS.PRADNYA PRAKASH KHADEKAR & ORS (SLP ( C) NOS. 25331-33 OF 2015). THE RELEVANT AND OPERATIVE PART OF JUDGMENT IS REPRO DUCED HEREIN FOR THE SAKE OF BREVITY AND CONVENIENCE: - 13. THIS COURT MUST VIEW WITH DISFAVOR ANY ATTEMPT BY A LITIGANT TO ABUSE THE PROCESS. THE SANCTITY OF THE JUDICIAL PROCESS WILL BE SERIOUSLY ERODED IF SUCH ATTEMPTS A RE NOT DEALT WITH FIRMLY. A LITIGANT WHO TAKES LIBERTIES W ITH THE TRUTH OR WITH THE PROCEDURES OF THE COURT SHOULD BE LEFT IN NO DOUBT ABOUT THE CONSEQUENCES TO FOLLOW. OTHERS S HOULD NOT VENTURE ALONG THE SAME PATH IN THE HOPE OR ON A MISPLACED EXPECTATION OF JUDICIAL LENIENCY. EXEMPLA RY COSTS ARE INEVITABLE, AND EVEN NECESSARY, IN ORDER TO ENS URE THAT I TA NO.175 & 183(ASR)/2015 5 IN LITIGATION, AS IN THE LAW WHICH IS PRACTICED IN OUR COUNTRY, THERE IS NO PREMIUM ON THE TRUTH. 14. COURTS ACROSS THE LEGAL SYSTEM - THIS COURT NOT BEING AN EXCEPTION ARE CHOKED WITH LITIGATION. FRIVOLOUS AND GROUNDLESS FILINGS CONSTITUTE A SERIOUS MENACE TO T HE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE . THEY CONSUME TIME AND CLOG THE INFRASTRUCTURE. PRODUCTIVE RESOURCES WHICH SHOULD BE DEPLOYED IN THE HANDLING OF GENUINE CAUSE S ARE DISSIPATED IN ATTENDING TO CASES FILED ONLY TO BENE FIT FROM DELAY, BY PROLONGING DEAD ISSUES AND PURSUING WORTH LESS CAUSES. NO LITIGANT CAN HAVE A VESTED INTEREST IN D ELAY. UNFORTUNATELY, AS THE PRESENT CASE EXEMPLIFIES, THE PROCESS OF DISPENSING JUSTICE IS MISUSED BY THE UNSCRUPULOU S TO THE DETRIMENT OF THE LEGITIMATE. THE PRESENT CASE IS AN ILLUSTRATION OF HOW A SIMPLE ISSUE HAS OCCUPIED THE TIME OF THE COURTS AND OF HOW SUCCESSIVE APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN FILED TO PROLONG THE INEVITABLE. THE PERSON IN WHOS E FAVOUR THE BALANCE OF JUSTICE LIES HAS IN THE PROCESS BEEN LEFT IN THE LURCH BY REPEATED ATTEMPTS TO REVIVE A STALE ISSUE. THIS TENDENCY CAN BE CURBED ONLY IF COURTS ACROSS THE SY STEM ADOPT AN INSTITUTIONAL APPROACH WHICH PENALIZES SUC H BEHAVIOR. LIBERAL ACCESS TO JUSTICE DOES NOT MEAN A CCESS TO CHAOS AND INDISCIPLINE. A STRONG MESSAGE MUST BE CONVEYED THAT COURTS OF JUSTICE WILL NOT BE ALLOWED TO BE DISRUPTED BY LITIGATIVE STRATEGIES DESIGNED TO PROF IT FROM THE DELAYS OF THE LAW. UNLESS REMEDIAL ACTION IS TAKEN BY ALL COURTS HERE AND NOW OUR SOCIETY WILL BREED A LEGAL CULTURE BASED ON EVASION INSTEAD OF ABIDANCE. IT IS THE DUT Y OF EVERY COURT TO FIRMLY DEAL WITH SUCH SITUATIONS. TH E IMPOSITION OF EXEMPLARY COSTS IS A NECESSARY INSTRU MENT WHICH HAS TO BE DEPLOYED TO WEED OUT, AS WELL AS TO PREVENT THE FILING OF FRIVOLOUS CASES. IT IS ONLY T HEN THAT THE COURTS CAN SET APART TIME TO RESOLVE GENUINE CAUSES AND ANSWER THE CONCERNS OF THOSE WHO ARE IN NEED OF JUS TICE. IMPOSITION OF REAL TIME COSTS IS ALSO NECESSARY TO ENSURE THAT ACCESS TO COURTS IS AVAILABLE TO CITIZENS WITH GENUINE GRIEVANCES. OTHERWISE, THE DOORS WOULD BE SHUT TO LEGITIMATE CAUSES SIMPLY BY THE WEIGHT OF UNDESERVI NG CASES WHICH FLOOD THE SYSTEM. SUCH A SITUATION CANN OT BE ALLOWED TO COME TO PASS. HENCE IT IS NOT MERELY A MATTER OF DISCRETION BUT A DUTY AND OBLIGATION CAST UPON A LL COURTS TO ENSURE THAT THE LEGAL SYSTEM IS NOT EXPLOITED BY THOSE WHO USE THE FORMS OF THE LAW TO DEFEAT OR DELAY JUSTICE. WE COMMEND ALL COURTS TO DEAL WITH FRIVOLOUS FILINGS IN THE SAME MANNER. 15 . WE ACCORDINGLY DISMISS THE SPECIAL LEAVE PETITIONS BUT WHILE DOING SO, DIRECT THAT: (I) . (II) (III) I TA NO.175 & 183(ASR)/2015 6 (IV) THE PETITIONERS SHALL PAY COSTS QUANTIFIED AT RS 5 LAKHS (RUPEES FIVE LAKHS) TO THE RESPONDENTS WITHIN TWO MONTHS. 16. WE ALSO CLARIFY THAT THIS JUDGMENT SHALL NOT AFFECT THE CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS WHICH HAVE BEEN INITIATED AGAINST THE P ETITIONERS. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE GUIDELINES OF THE APE X COURT, ALTHOUGH WE INTENDS TO IMPOSE THE COSTS OF RS.10,000/- ON THE ASSESSEE, HOWEVER, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUM STANCES AS THE ASSESSEE WAS PART OF THE GOVT. PROJECT, THEREFORE, W E RESTRICT OURSELVES FROM DOING THE SAME, HOWEVER, OUR DISMAY EXIST . 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED AS DISMISSED AS WITHDRAWN. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.0 8.2017. SD/- SD/- (T. S. KAPOOR) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:11.08.2017. /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE ASSESSEE: (2) THE (3) THE CIT(A), (4) THE CIT, (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., TRUE COPY BY ORDER