MANZOOR AHMED MAKROO, SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANNANTNAG

ITA 332/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 126 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5749 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 8 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-02-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 22-02-2018
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 30-05-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S S NEGI LD
• Assessee Lawyers: UPENDER BHAT LD
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 2

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUN AL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. R.S.SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.332(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:201 2-13 SH. MANZOOR AHMAD MAKROO C/O BHAT DURANI & ASSOCIATES (CHARTERED ACCOUNTANT) FLAT NO.207, 1 ST FLOOR, YATRI BHAWAN-II, DURGA NAG DALGATE, SRINAGAR J&K-190001 PAN:AJWPA8785H VS. ITO, ANNANTNAG KASHMIR, J&K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. UPENDER BHAT (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. S.S. NEGI (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 22.02.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 23.02.2018 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE ORD ER DATED 18.01.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), J&K, JAMMU, IN A PPEAL NO.168/2015-16, BY WHICH THE LD. CIT(A) ON NON-PROSE CUTION DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE. FROM THE ORDER IT REFLECTS THAT FOUR OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE BY ISSUING THE NOTICES FROM TIME TO TIME ON THE ADDRE SS GIVEN BY ITA NO.332 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) SH. MANZOOR AHMAND MAKROO V S. ITO 2 THE APPELLANT IN FORM NO.35, HOWEVER, ON NONE OF TH E DATES, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOR F ILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND I N THAT EVENTUALITY DESPITE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNITIES OF BE ING HEARD, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APPELLANT IS N OT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL, THEREFORE, HE WAS PL EASED TO DISMISS THE APPEAL. 2. 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 FOUR OPPORTUNITIES. ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAW DOES NOT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTIVE AND SL EEPS OVER HIS RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DI SPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, WITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF L AW. THE, PRINCIPLE WHICH FORMS 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 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 BEHAVIOUR THAN AN ABSTRACT P HILOSOPHY, 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 ITA NO.332 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2012-13) SH. MANZOOR AHMAND MAKROO V S. ITO 3 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) HAS NOT PASSED THE ORDER UNDER CHAL LENGE ON MERIT, HENCE WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO RE MAND BACK THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECID E AFRESH ON MERITS , WHILE AFFORDING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPOR TUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT , IN ORDER TO FOL LOW 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. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 23.02.2018. SD/- SD/- (R.S.SYAL) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDI CIAL MEMBER DATED:23.02.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) SH. MANZOOR AHMAD MAKROO (2) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, ANNANTNAG (3) THE CIT(A), J&K, JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRU E COPY BY ORDER