MEASAGE GEE ENN SONS, SRINAGAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD- 1, SRINAGAR

ITA 386/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7846 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 21 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 17-08-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 17-08-2020
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 27-05-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR (VIRTUAL COURT) BEFORE: SHRI. N.K. SAINI, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI. N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 386/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S GEE ENN SONS (GEE ENN BAKERS), M. A. ROAD, SRINAGAR [PAN NO: AAFFJ 2730D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1 ST SRINAGAR, (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. D.R.) DATE OF HEARING: 17.08.2020 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.08.2020 ORDER PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 26-03-2019, PASSED BY THE LD . CIT(A)-1, AMRITSAR U/S. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1 961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) FOR THE AFORESAID ASSES SMENT YEAR, WHEREBY THE LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF T HE ASSESSEE, ON NON-PROSECUTION. 2. FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER IT REFLECTS THAT THOUGH THE LD. CIT(A) FIXED THE CASE FOR HEARING ON VARIOUS DATES, HO WEVER ON MOST OF THE DATES, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE APPE LLATE PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION AND THEREFORE ITA NO. 386/ASR/2019 GEE ENN SONS V . ITO 2 THE LD. CIT(A) WHILE OBSERVING THAT THE APPELLANT/AS SESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEAL, DISMISSED THE SAME. 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. THE APPELLANT MOST OF THE TIMES, DI D NOT BOTHER ITSELF TO APPEAR AND CO-ORDINATE WITH APPELLAT E PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER AFFORDING VARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES. ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE THAT LAW DOES N OT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTIVE AND SLEEPS OVER HIS RIGHTS BY ALLO WING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, W ITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. THE, PRINCIPLE WHICH F ORMS 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 SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS), B UT EVEN A VIGILANT LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BE HAVIOR THAN AN ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF T HE JUDICATURE PERMANENTLY CLOSED BEFORE HIM. THE EFFORT O F THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SH UTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDICTION BEFORE A PARTY WHO SEEKS JUSTIC E, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHET HER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT , WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH ON MERITS, WHILE AFFORDING PROPER AND ITA NO. 386/ASR/2019 GEE ENN SONS V . ITO 3 REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/AP PELLANT, IN 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 ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17.0 8.2020. SD/- SD/- ( N. K. SAINI ) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) VICE PRESIDENT JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17.08.2020 GP/SR.PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) APPELLANT (2) THE RESPONDENT (3) THE CIT(A) (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR. DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER