SH. GAURAV LUTHRA, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, JALANDHAR

ITA 206/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 117 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 1325 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 14-06-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 27-03-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV , ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.206(ASR)/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 SH. GAURAV LUTHARA SON OF SH. ASHOK KUMAR WS-32, KOT BAZAR, BASTI SHEIKH, JALANDHAR [PAN NO: ACVPL0937F] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(5) JALANDHAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 14.06.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 14.06.2019 ORDER PER BENCH: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28-01-2019, PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)- 1, JALANDHAR U/S.250 (6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HER EINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FOR THE AFORESAID ASSESSMENT YEAR, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE, ON N ON- PROSECUTION. 2. FROM THE ORDER IT REFLECTS THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT( A) FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES, HOWEVER THE ASSESSE E NEITHER ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND IN THAT EVENTUALITY IT WAS OBSERVED ITA NO.206 /ASR/2019 SH. GAUR AV LUTHARA VS. ITO, WARD-1(5), JALANDHAR 2 BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTE D IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL, THEREFORE, HE WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPE AL. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. THE APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER HIMSEL F TO APPEAR AND CO-ORDINATE WITH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER AFFORDING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES. ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT T O THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAW DOES NOT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTI VE AND SLEEPS OVER HIS RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, WITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. THE, PRINCIPLE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THIS RULE I S EXPRESSED IN THE MAXIM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUB VENIUNT (LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEE P OVER THEIR RIGHTS), BUT EVEN A VIGILANT LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOR THAN AN ABSTRACT PH ILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT SHO ULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF THE JUDICATURE PERMANENTLY CLOSED BEFORE HIM. THE EFFORT OF THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SHUTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDI CTION BEFORE A PARTY WHO SEEKS JUSTICE, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAK E COMMITTED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO E NTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING T HE FACTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER UNDER CHALLEN GE ON MERIT , HENCE WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS , WHILE AFFORDING PROPER AND REASONA BLE ITA NO.206 /ASR/2019 SH. GAUR AV LUTHARA VS. ITO, WARD-1(5), JALANDHAR 3 OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, I N 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. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLO WED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14.0 6.2019. SD/- SD/- ( VIKRAM SINGH YADAV ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIA L MEMBER DATED:14.06.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(5), JALANDH AR (3) THE CIT(A)-I, JALANDHAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER