MESSAGE MANVATA FOUNDATION, MUKTSAR V. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (EXEMPTION), CHANDIGARH

ITA 618/ASR/2019

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 112 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2162 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-11-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 26-11-2019
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 25-09-2019
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: PRABHJO T KAUR LD
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 80G

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.618/ASR/2019 ASSESSMENT YEAR: NIL M/S MANVATA FOUNDATION, OPPOSITE CANAL COLONY, BATHINDA ROAD, MUKTSAR VS. THE CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH [PAN:AAFAM 2057F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : SH. P.N. ARORA ( LD. ADV.) RESPONDENT BY: SMT. PRABHJOT KAUR (LD. CIT-DR) DATE OF HEARING: 26.11.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 26.11.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(EXEMPTIONS), CHANDIGARH, U/S 12AA(1)(B)(II) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT). 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE BENCH THAT THERE IS A DELAY OF 240 DAYS IN THE FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL , THEREFORE, THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED AN APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELA Y FOR FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL U/S 253(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) BY SUBMITTING THAT TH E OPPORTUNITY NOTICES SENT BY THE LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH THROUGH E-F ILING PORTAL WERE NOT CHECKED BY THE ASSESSEE AS ITS PASSWORD WAS AVAILABL E ITA N0.618/ASR/ 2019 M/S. MANVATA FOUNDAT ION VS. CIT(E) 2 WITH ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND THE LATER ALSO DID NOT CHECK IT U P, DUE TO INADVERTENCE. THAT ON 09.09.2019 WHEN OUR COUNSEL CH ECKED UP PORTAL, THEN ONLY IT CAME TO HIS KNOWLEDGE THAT THE LD. CIT(E), CHANDIGARH HAS DECLINED TO GRANT APPROVAL U/S 80G OF T HE ACT VIDE ORDER DATED 29.11.2018. FOR THIS REASON, APPEAL AGAIN ST THE CAPTIONED ORDER DATED 29.11.2018 COULD NOT BE FILED W ITHIN THE STIPULATED TIME. THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING APPEAL IS NO T TO WILLFUL DEFAULT. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDONED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSE E HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DELAY OF EACH AND EVERY DAY , THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD BOTH THE PARTIES AND WHILE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT REFLECTS THAT THE E-FILING PO RTAL WAS NOT CHECKED BY THE ASSESSEE DUE TO INADVERTENCE OF ASSESSEES COUNSE L WHICH RESULTED INTO DELAY OF FILING THE APPEAL. IN OU R CONSIDERED OPINION, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO B E PLAUSIBLE AND LOGICAL BUT CONSIDERING THE TENURE OF DELAY, THE SA ME CANNOT BE ALLOWED WITHOUT PUTTING CONDITION HENCE IN THE INTER EST OF JUSTICE AND CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE INC LINED TO CONDONE THE DELAY SUBJECT TO DEPOSIT OF RS. 5,000/- IN T HE REVENUE DEPARTMENT WITHIN 01 MONTH OF THIS ORDER, CONSEQUENTLY THE DELAY STANDS CONDONED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FROM THE ORDER, IT REFLECTS THAT FOUR OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN G IVEN BY THE LD. CIT(E) TO THE APPELLANT, HOWEVER ON NONE OF THE DA TES, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED ANY ADJOU RNMENT ITA N0.618/ASR/ 2019 M/S. MANVATA FOUNDAT ION VS. CIT(E) 3 APPLICATION OR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IN THAT EVENTUAL ITY IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(E) THAT IN THE ABSENCE OF SUBMISSIONS REGARDING THE ACTIVITIES, IT IS DIFFICULT TO VERIFY BOTH THE OBJECTS AND GENUINENESS OF ACTIVITIES OF THE SOCIETY . ULTIMATELY THE LD. COMMISSIONER DENIED THE REGISTRATION. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORD ER IMPUGNED HEREIN. ALTHOUGH, THE INSTANT APPEAL OF TH E 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 SLEEPS OVER HIS RI GHTS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN D ORMANT, WITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. THE, PRINCIP LE 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 LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS H UMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAN AN AB STRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE ON THE PART OF A LITIGANT SHOULD NOT NORMALLY CAUSE THE DOORS OF THE JUDICATURE PERMANENTLY CLOSED BEFORE HIM. THE EFFORT OF THE COURT SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF FIN DING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SHUTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDICTION BEFORE A PARTY WHO SEEKS JUSTICE, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM, BU T TO SEE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE , THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE LD. CIT(E) D ID NOT PASS THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT, HENCE WE FEEL IT APPR OPRIATE TO RESTORE THE ISSUE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(E) TO DECIDE AFRE SH ON MERITS, WITHIN 06 MONTHS OF THIS ORDER, SUFFICE TO SAY, WHILE AFFORDING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/AP PELLANT, IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. ITA N0.618/ASR/ 2019 M/S. MANVATA FOUNDAT ION VS. CIT(E) 4 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS A LLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 26/1 1 /2019. SD/- SD/- (DR. A.L.SAINI) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED:26 /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