M/s Goodwil Traders, Srinagar V. Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

ITA 30/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2341 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 08-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 07-03-2019
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Appeal Filed On: 11-01-2017
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR (SMC) BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I. T. A. NO. 30/ASR/2017 ASSE SSMENT YEAR: 2013-14 GOODWILL TRADERS, COURT ROAD, LAL CHOWK, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR [PAN: AAGFG 1104K] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3(1), SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 07.03.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.03.2019 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), JAMMU (CIT(A ) FOR SHORT) DATED 19.07.2016, PARTLY ALLOWING THE ASSESSEES APPEAL C ONTESTING ITS ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 ('THE AC T' HEREINAFTER) FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR (AY) 2013-14 VIDE ORDER DATED 22.02.2016. 2. NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING, AND NEITHER ANY ADJOURNMENT MOTION STANDS MADE. THIS, DESPITE THE FACT OF PROPER SERVICE OF THE NOTICE OF HEARING IN- AS-MUCH AS THE SAME, SENT PER REGISTERED POST, HAS NOT CAME BACK UN-SERVED. THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION EVEN AN EARLIER OCCASIONS, I.E., ON 08/01/2019 AND 26/9/201 8, THOUGH THE HEARING ON BOTH ITA NO. 30/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) GOODWILL TRADERS V. ITO 2 OCCASIONS, AGAIN ON DATES FOR WHICH NOTICES STOOD S ERVED, WERE ADJOURNED IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE, SO AS TO COMPLY WITH THE PRINC IPLE OF AUDI ALTERAM PARTEM . IT WOULD BE PERTINENT TO REPRODUCE THE ORDER-SHEET ENTRY RECORDED WHILE GRANTING TIME ON 08/1/2019: NONE APPEARED FOR AND ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WH EN THE APPEAL WAS CALLED OUT FOR HEARING. IN THIS CASE, THE APPEAL IS TIME BARRE D BY 94 DAYS. NO CONDONATION PETITION HAS HOWEVER BEEN FILED TO DATE. ALSO, THE APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE, FOR REMOVAL OF WHICH DEFECTS TIME UP TO 30.11.2018 WAS GIVEN BY THE BENCH ON 26.9.2018. IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AS WELL AS THE ASSESSEES A DJOURNMENT APPLICATION DATED TODAY INSTANT, TIME FOR FILING CONDONATION PETITION, DULY SUPPORTED, AS WELL AS REMOVAL OF THE DEFECTS, BEING COMMUNICATED BY THE REGISTRY SIN CE THE FILING OF THE APPEAL ON 11.01.2017, IS EXTENDED UP TO 28.02.2019 . HEARING OF THE APPEAL IS ADJOURNED TO 07.03.2019. NEITHER HAS ANY CONDONATION APPLICATION BEEN FILED NOR THE DEFECTS REMOVED, TO DATE, DESPITE SUFFICIENT TIME BEING ALLOWED FOR THE SAME. THE APPEAL IS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, NOT LIABLE TO BE ADMITTED. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOS E 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, DISMISSED THE APPEALS IN LIMINE REJECTING THE APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT ON T HE GROUND THAT THE COUNSEL WAS NOT PRESENT IN THE COURT BUT STATEDLY O UT OF STATION. THE APEX COURT ITA NO. 30/ASR/2017 (AY 2013-14) GOODWILL TRADERS V. ITO 3 WHILE DISMISSING THE APPEALS MADE IT CLEAR THAT IT WOULD NOT RESTORE THE APPEALS. AS AFORE-STATED, THERE IS NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION I N THE INSTANT CASE, AND WHICH IS THE THIRD SUCH INSTANCE. AS AFORE-STATED, THERE IS NO REPRESENTATION IN THIS CASE DESPITE SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES. RATHER, THE APPEAL, FILED ON 11/1/20 17, IS BOTH BARRED BY TIME AS WELL AS DEFECTIVE AND, ACCORDINGLY, NOT MAINTAINABLE. TH E FIRST APPELLATE AUTHORITY, BEFORE WHOM THERE WAS REPRESENTATION, IT MAY THOUGH BE MENTIONED, HAS, UPON DUE CONSIDERATION, ALREADY ALLOWED PART RELIEF TO THE A SSESSEE. THE INSTANT APPEAL IS, UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS UN-ADMITTED AND, IN ANY CASE, FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. I DECIDE ACCORDINGLY. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSE D IN LIMINE . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON MARCH 8, 2019 SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 08.3.2019 /GP/SR. PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE APPELLANT: GOODWILL TRADERS COURT ROAD, LAL CHOWK, SRINAGAR, KASHMIR (2) THE RESPONDENT: INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-3( 1), SRINAGAR (3) THE CIT(APPEALS) JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T. TRUE COPY BY ORDER