Executive Officer Block Dev & Panchyat Officer, Amritsar V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-II, AMRITSAR

ITA 619/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5562 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 4 month(s) 6 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-02-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 04-02-2019
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 28-09-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: T S ARORA LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE T RIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMB ER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.619(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2008-09 THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VERKA, AMRITSAR [TAN:AMRE 10363D] VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, TDS-II, AMRITSAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. T.S. ARORA (LD. AD V.) RESPONDENT BY: SH. CHARAN DASS (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 04.02.2019 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 04.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: THE INSTANT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE/AP PELLANT, AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 29.06.2017 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR, IN APPEAL NO.44/2011-12, BY WHICH THE LD. CIT(A), ON NO N-PROSECUTION DISMISSED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IN LIMINE . 2. FROM THE ORDER IT REFLECTS THAT FOUR OPPORTUNITIES HA VE BEEN GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING THE NOTICES FROM TIME TO TIME ON T HE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN FORM NO.35, HOWEVER, ON NONE OF THE DATES, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OR WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS AND IN THAT EVENTUAL ITY IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT ALTHOUGH THE ASSESSEE AVAILED SEVE RAL OPPORTUNITIES, HOWEVER, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING OF THE PRESENT APPEAL. THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PRO SECUTION. I TA NO.619 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2008-09) THE EXECUTIV E OFFICER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT & PANC HYAT OFFICER VS. ITO, TDS-II 2 3. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE O RDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. THE APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER HIMSELF TO APPE AR AND CO-ORDINATE WITH APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER AFFORDING FOUR OPPO RTUNITIES. ALTHOUGH THE INSTANT APPEAL OF THE 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 RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED 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 MAXI M 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 HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAN AN ABSTRACT PH ILOSOPHY, 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 FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SHUTTERS OF ADJUDICATORY JURISDICTION BEFORE A PARTY WHO SEEKS JUST ICE, ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHETHER IT IS POSSIB LE TO ENTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE , THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE LD. CIT(A) HAS NOT PASSED THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MER IT, WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE INSTANT CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS, WHILE AFFORDING PRO PER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, I N ORDER TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE ALSO FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO DIRECT THE ASSESSEE/APPELL ANT TO EXTEND ITS FULL CO-OPERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN THE APPELL ATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS AND WHEN REQUIRED AND IN CASE OF FURTHER DEFAULT, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTED TO ANY LENIENCY. I TA NO.619 /ASR/2017 (A.Y.2008-09) THE EXECUTIV E OFFICER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT & PANC HYAT OFFICER VS. ITO, TDS-II 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 04.02.2019. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDIC IAL MEMBER DATED: 04.02.2019 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER BLOCK DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYAT OFFICER, VERKA (2) THE ITO, TDS-II, AMRITSAR (3) THE CIT(A)-2, AMRITSAR (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER FILENAME: EXECUTIVE OFFICRER BLOCK DEVLOPMENT & PA NCHYAT OFFICER, 619- 17 DIRECTORY: D:\DOCUMENT\NKC ORDERS 2018 TEMPLATE: C:\USERS\ETC PARMOD\APPDATA\ROAMING\MICROSOFT\TEMPLATES\NORMAL.D OT TITLE: IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBU NAL SUBJECT: AUTHOR: RAHUL PRABHAKAR KEYWORDS: COMMENTS: CREATION DATE: 2/4/2019 3:26:00 PM CHANGE NUMBER: 70 LAST SAVED ON: 2/5/2019 2:33:00 PM LAST SAVED BY: ETC PARMOD TOTAL EDITING TIME: 59 MINUTES LAST PRINTED ON: 2/5/2019 2:33:00 PM AS OF LAST COMPLETE PRINTING NUMBER OF PAGES: 4 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF WORDS: 728 (APPROX.) NUMBER OF CHARACTERS: 4,151 (APPROX.)