EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS) , SRINAGAR

ITA 633/ASR/2017

• Counselvise Citation: [2018] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 4559 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 7 month(s) 18 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2018
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 18-04-2018
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 04-10-2017
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAHUL DHAWANLD
• Assessee Lawyers: BASHIR AHMAD LONE LD
• Keywords: Opportunity of being heard; Principle of natural justice; Condonation of delay

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRI BUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AN D SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS.632 & 633(ASR)/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS:2013-14 & 2 014-15 EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR PAN:AMRM11687E VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. BASHIR AHM AD LONE (LD. CA) RESPONDENT BY: SH. RAHUL DHAWAN (LD. DR) DATE OF HEARING: 18.04.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 22.05.2018 ORDER PER BENCH: THE ASSESSEE HAS PREFERRED THE AFORESAID APPEALS, ON FEELING AGGRIEVED AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS DATED 3 0.03.2017 RELEVANT TO ASST. YEAR:2013-14 AND 30.03.2017 RELEVA NT TO ASST. YEAR:2014-15. 2. AT THE OUTSET, IT APPEARS THAT BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TIME BARRED BY 96 DAYS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED APPLICATION FOR CONDONATION OF DELAY FOR FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL S U/S 253(1) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER CALLED AS THE ACT) BY SUBMITTING THAT THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PR MUNICIPAL COM MITTEE ITA NOS.632& 633/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2013-14 & 2014-15) EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR VS. ITO, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR 2 GANDERBAL HAS RECEIVED THE APPEAL ORDER PASSED U/S 250(6 ) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 ON 01/05/2017. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PR WAS REQUIRED TO FILE APPEAL U/S 253(1) OF T HE INCOME TAX ACT 1961 BEFORE YOUR HONBLE BENCH WITHIN 60 DAYS F ROM THE DATE OF RECEIPT OF ORDER AND THE DATE STANDS EXPIRED O N 30/06/2017. THE EXECUTIVE OFFICER/ PR COULD NOT FILE T HE APPEAL WITHIN A PERIOD OF 60 DAYS DUE TO THE REASON, THAT TH E SAID OFFICIAL WAS ASSIGNED THE JOB OF STORES VERIFICATION OF VA RIOUS MUNICIPAL COMMITTEES OF DISTRICT BUDGAM BY HIS HEAD OF THE DEPARTMENT, WHICH AFFECTED THE NORMAL FUNCTIONING OF H IS OFFICE AND THE OFFICER COULD NOT ATTEND THE OFFICE DAILY, WHI CH RESULTED IN DELAY IN SUBMITTING OF APPEAL BEFORE YOUR HONBLE BE NCH. THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING APPEAL IS NOT TO WILLFUL DEFAULT OF PR, BUT DUE TO STATE GOVT. ENGAGEMENTS. IN THE INTEREST OF NATURAL JUSTICE, THE DELAY IN SUBMITTING THE APPEAL MAY PLEASE BE CONDO NED. 3. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE LD. DR SUBMITTED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE THE DELAY OF EACH AND E VERY DAY, THEREFORE, THE SAME CANNOT BE ALLOWED. 4. WE HAVE HEARD THE PARTIES AND WHILE CONSIDERING THE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, IT REFLECTS THAT THE CONCERNED OFFICER I.E., EXECUTIVE OFFICER/PR OF THE ASSESSEE WAS ASSIG NED THE DUTIES FOR FILING THE APPEALS, HOWEVER, THE SAID O FFICIAL WAS ASSIGNED THE JOB OF STORES VERIFICATION OF VARIOUS MUNI CIPAL COMMITTEES OF DISTRICT BUDGAM BY HIS HEAD OF THE DEPARTM ENT, WHICH AFFECTED THE NORMAL FUNCTIONING OF HIS OFFICE AND THE ITA NOS.632& 633/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2013-14 & 2014-15) EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR VS. ITO, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR 3 OFFICER COULD NOT ATTEND THE OFFICE DAILY, WHICH RESULTE D INTO DELAY. AS IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT DELAY IN SUBMITTIN G APPEAL IS NOT A WILLFUL DEFAULT OF THE SAID OFFICIAL BUT DUE TO STATE GOVT. ENGAGEMENTS. IN OUR CONSIDERED OPINION, THE EXPLANATION GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE SEEMS TO BE PLAUSIBLE AND LOGICAL, HENCE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS THAT THE L D. CIT(A) DID NOT PASS THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT, HOWE VER, DISMISSED THE APPEAL ON NON-PROSECUTION, THE DELAY DESER VES TO BE CONDONED AND HENCE, THE SAME IS CONDONED. 5. NOW COMING TO THE MERIT OF THE IMPUGNED ORDER. FROM THE ORDER, IT REFLECTS THAT SEVEN OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN G IVEN TO THE ASSESSEE BY ISSUING THE NOTICES FROM TIME TO TIME ON THE AD DRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT IN FORM NO.35, HOWEVER, ON N ONE OF THE DATES, THE ASSESSEE NEITHER ATTENDED THE APPELLATE PROCEE DINGS NOR FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION OR WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS AND IN THAT EVENTUALITY DESPITE GIVING SEVERAL OPPORTUNIT IES OF BEING HEARD, IT WAS OBSERVED BY THE LD. CIT(A) THAT THE APP ELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEALS. THEREFORE, HE WAS PLEASED TO DISMISS THE APPEALS IN LIMINE. WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE OR DER IMPUGNED HEREIN. THE APPELLANT DID NOT BOTHER HIMSEL F TO APPEAR AND COOPERATE IN THE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS EVEN AFTER AFFORDING SEVEN OPPORTUNITIES. ALTHOUGH, THE INSTANT APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED IN ORDER TO GIVE EFFECT TO THE ITA NOS.632& 633/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2013-14 & 2014-15) EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR VS. ITO, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR 4 PRINCIPLE THAT LAW DOES NOT ASSIST THE PERSON WHO IS INACTI VE AND SLEEPS OVER HIS RIGHTS BY ALLOWING THEM WHEN CHALLENGED OR DISPUTED TO REMAIN DORMANT, WITHOUT ASSERTING THEM IN A COURT OF LAW. THE, PRINCIPLE WHICH FORMS THE BASIS OF THIS RULE I S 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 LIT IGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND I S 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 COUR T SHOULD NOT BE ONE OF FINDING MEANS TO PULL DOWN THE SHUTTERS 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) HAS NOT PASSED THE ORDER UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT, HENCE WE FEEL IT APPR OPRIATE AND PROPER TO REMAND BACK THE INSTANT CASES TO THE FILE OF T HE LD. CIT(A) TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS, WHILE AFFORDING PRO PER AND 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/APPELL ANT TO EXTEND ITS FULL CO-OPERATION AND PARTICIPATION IN T HE APPELLATE PROCEEDINGS BEFORE THE LD. CIT(A) AS AND WHEN REQUIRED AND IN ITA NOS.632& 633/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2013-14 & 2014-15) EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR VS. ITO, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR 5 CASE OF FURTHER DEFAULT, THE ASSESSEE SHALL NOT BE SUBJECTE D TO ANY LENIENCY. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE ALL OWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22.05.2018. SD/- SD/- (SANJAY ARORA) (N.K.CHOUDHRY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED:22.05.2018 /PK/ PS. COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: (1) EXECUTIVE OFFICER(DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE , KASHMIR (2) THE ITO, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR (3) THE CIT(A)-J&K, JAMMU (4) THE CIT CONCERNED (5) THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., AMRITSAR TRUE COPY BY ORDER ITA NOS.632& 633/ASR/2017 (A.YS .2013-14 & 2014-15) EXECUTIVE OFFICER (DDO/PR) MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, KASHMIR VS. ITO, WARD (TDS), SRINAGAR 6