Kala Devi Rungta, Azamgarh V. ACIT, Circle - Azamgarh, Azamgarh

ITA 38/VNS/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2022] 105 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4379 (ITAT-VARANASI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 2 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 18-04-2022
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 02-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI BEFORE SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.38/VNS/2020 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Kala Devi Rungta, W/o Kamal Kumar Rungta, Asifganj, Azamgarh, U.P. PAN-AHFPR9083C v. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle, Azamgarh (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR Date of hearing: 19.04.2022 Date of pronouncement: 19.04.2022 O R D E R SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when the case was called for hearing. It is noted that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non prosecution while passing the ex parte order therefore, the present appeal is taken up for hearing and disposal ex parte. 2. I have gone through the impugned order of the CIT(A) and also considered the submissions of the learned DR who has relied upon the order of the CIT(A) and submitted that the assessee has not appeared before the CIT(A), despite several opportunities of hearing were granted to the assessee. It is pertinent to note that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution. The relevant part of the order of the CIT(A) in para 4 is as under:- “4. The aforesaid non-compliance on part of appellant reveals beyond doubt that appellant has nothing to say in the matter of this appeal. It can be concluded that appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT”. In view of the above mentioned facts and by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi ITA No.38/VNS/2020 Kala Devi Rungta 2 Bench in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in case of Estate of Late TukojiRaoHolkar vs. CWT (1997) reported in 223 ITR 480 the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.” 3. Thus, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without adjudication of the issues on merits, therefore, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is not inconformity with the provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 whereby the CIT(A) ought to have decided the appeal on merits by a speaking order. Accordingly, in the facts and circumstances of the case and in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merits after giving an opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open court after a conclusion of hearing on 19.04.2022. Sd/- [VIJAY PAL RAO] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 19/04/2022 Varanasi Sh Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant- 2. Respondent- 3. CIT(A),Varanasi 4. CIT 5. DR By order Sr. P.S.