HARDEV KAUR, HOSHIARPUR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, HOSHIARPUR

ITA 563/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2178 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 27-11-2019
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: ASHRAY SARNA LD
• Keywords: Set aside

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. A.L.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.563/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12 SMT. HARDEV KAUR, 23-L, MODEL TOWN, HOSHIARPUR. VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-2, HOSHIARPUR. [PAN:BPJPK 1050B] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. ASHRAY SAR NA (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 27.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 27.11.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 28.05.2019 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-1, JALANDHAR, U/S 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HE REINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE CASE, WE REALIZE THAT THE LD. CIT(A) THOUGH ISSUED THE NOTICES FOUR TIMES BUT ON TWO O CCASIONS THE SAME COULD NOT BE SERVED ON THE REASON THAT THE LETTER RECEIVED BACK WITH POSTAL REMARKS DOOR LOCKED AND TWO OCCASIONS NEITHER ANY ONE ATTENDED NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT SOUGHT, THEREFORE, ON NON- APPEARANCE OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE CONSTRAINED CIRCUMSTA NCES, THE ITA NO.563/ASR/ 2019 (A.Y.2011-12) SMT. HARDEV KAUR VS. ITO 2 LD. CIT(A) DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED THAT SHE NEITHER RECEIVED ANY NOTICE OF HEARING NOR WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE APPELLATE PR OCEEDINGS GOING ON BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) WHICH RESULTED INTO NON-APPE ARANCE BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A). THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED ITS AFFIDAVIT ON SUPPORT OF ITS CONTENTION. 4. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO T HE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. THOUGH THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE ASSE SSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE PRINCIPLE TH AT LAW DOES NOT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTIVE AND SLEEPS OVER HIS RIGH TS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, W ITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. 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 SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS), BUT EVEN A VIGILANT LITIGAN T IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAN AN ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF THE JUDICATURE PERMANENTLY CLOSED BEFORE H IM. THE EFFORT OF THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SHUTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDICTION BEFORE A PARTY WHO SEEKS J USTICE, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHETHER I T IS POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE. CONSIDERING T HE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES SPECIFICALLY THE AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE A SSESSEE TO THE EFFECT THE SHE DID NOT RECEIVE ANY NOTICE OF HEARING AN D UNDERTAKE TO APPEAR AS AND WHEN WOULD BE REQUIRED AND THE PECULIAR FACT THAT THE LD. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER ON MERIT THEREFORE WIT HOUT GOING INTO CONTROVERSY QUA SERVICE OF NOTICE OH HEARING, BUT FOR T HE ENDS OF CONTROVERSY, IT WOULD BE APPROPRIATE COURSE, TO SET ASIDE THE CASE TO THE ITA NO.563/ASR/ 2019 (A.Y.2011-12) SMT. HARDEV KAUR VS. ITO 3 FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) FOR DECISION AFRESH, SUFFICE TO SAY WHILE GIVING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITIES OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE. WE ALSO FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE/APPEL LANT 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, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO A NY LENIENCY. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27/1 1/2019. SD/- SD/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED:27/11/2019. /PK/ PS. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THEN CIT(APPEALS) 5. SR DR, I.T.A.T. AMRITSAR 6. GUARD FILE TRUE COPY BY ORDER