Regana Srinivasa Rao, , Vizianagaram V. The Income Tax Officer, Ward -2, , Vizianagaram,

ITA 68/VIZ/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 108 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5550 (ITAT-VISAKHAPATNAM)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-05-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 31-03-2021
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 11-02-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SUMAN MALIK
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 13

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM (THROUGH WEB - BASED VIDEO CONFERENCING PLATFORM) BEFORE SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HON'BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 68/VIZ/2020 (ASST. YEAR : 2011 - 1 2 ) REGANA SRINIVASA RAO, PROP. SRI VENKATA RAMANA WINES, CANTONMENT , VIZIANAGARAM . VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD - 2 , VIZIANAGARAM. PAN NO. AWYPR 8748 N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE . DEPARTMENT BY : SMT. SUMAN MALIK, DR DATE OF HEARING : 29 / 0 4 /2021 . DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 / 0 5 /2021 . O R D E R PER N.K. CHOUDHRY , JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 2 0 /11/2019 IMPUGNED HEREIN PASSED BY THE LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) - 1 [FOR SHORT , LD. COMMISSIONER] , VISAKHAPATNAM U/SEC. 250(6) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS 'ACT') FOR THE A.Y. 2011 - 12. 2 ITA NO. 6 8 / VIZ /2020 ( REGANA SRINIVASA RAO ) 2. AT THE OUTSET , IT IS OBSERVED THAT THERE IS DELAY OF 13 DAYS IN FILLING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL WHICH THE ASSESSEE HAS PLEADED THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS SEARCHING FOR JOB AND THEREFORE REMAINED OUT OF STATION AND DID NOT RECEIVE THE ORDER PERSONALLY BUT SOMEHOW THE SAME WAS SERVED AT HIS PLACE IN HIS ABSENCE AND EVEN THERE WAS SOME COMMUNICATION GAP WHICH RESULTED INTO DELAY OF 13 DAYS IN FILING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL. THE ASSESSEE ALSO FILED HIS AFFI DAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ITS APPEAL. THE REVENUE DEPARTMENT DID NOT REFUTE THE CLAIM OF THE ASSESSEE, HENCE CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND THE MEAGRE DELAY, WE DEEM IT APPROPRIATE TO CONDONE THE DELAY AND RESULTANTLY THE DELAY STANDS CONDONED. 3. COMING TO THE MERITS OF THE APPEAL, THOUGH V ARIOUS OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN BY THE BENCH TO THE ASSESSEE , HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE TH E BENCH TO PROSECUTE ITS CASE AND EVEN OTHERWISE, IT REFLECTS FROM THE IMPUGNED ORDER THAT THOUGH SEVERAL NOTICES OF HEARING HAVE BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE /APPELLANT , THE SAME HAVE NOT BEEN SERVED AND RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARKS OF THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT RETURNED TO SE NDER AS NO SUCH ADDRESS . CONSEQUENTLY, THE LD. COMMISSIONER FI N DING NO OPTION DECIDE D THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AND CONFIRMED THE PENALTY LEVIED BY THE AO. 4 . WE HAVE GIVEN OUR THOUGHTFUL CONSIDERATION TO THE ORDER IMPUGNED HEREIN. 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 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 LITIGANT IS PRONE TO COMMIT 3 ITA NO. 6 8 / VIZ /2020 ( REGANA SRINIVASA RAO ) MISTAKES. AS THE APHORISM TO ERR IS HUMAN AND IS MORE A PRACTICAL NOTION OF HUMAN BEHAVIOUR THAN AN ABSTRACT PHILOSOPHY, THE UNINTENTIONAL LAPSE O N 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 JUSTICE , ON ACCOUNT OF ANY MISTAKE COMMITTED BY HIM, BUT TO SEE WHETHER IT IS POSSIBLE TO ENTERTAIN HIS GRIEVANCE IF IT IS GENUINE, THEREFORE, CONSIDERING THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, SPECIFICALLY TO THE EFFECTS THAT THE LD. CIT( A ) DID NOT PASS THE ORDE R UNDER CHALLENGE ON MERIT, HENCE WE FEEL IT APPROPRIATE TO RESTORE THE CASE TO THE FILE OF THE LD. CIT( A ) TO DECIDE AFRESH ON MERITS, SUFFICE TO SAY, WHILE AFFORDING PROPER AND REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY(S) OF BEING HEARD TO THE ASSESSEE/APPELLANT, IN ORDER TO FOLLOW THE PRINCIPLE OF NATURAL JUSTICE. WE MAY CLARIFY THAT IN CASE OF FURTHER FAILURE OR DEFAULT BY TH E APPELLANT BEFORE THE LD. CIT( A ), THEN THE LD. CIT( A ) SHALL BE AT LIBERTY TO DECIDE THE APPEAL OF THE APPELLANT CONSIDERING THE PARTICULAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND IN THAT EVENTUALITY THE APPELLANT SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED FOR ANY LENIENCY. 5 . IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON TH IS 1 0 T H DAY OF MAY , 2021 . S D / - S D / - (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) ( N.K. CHOUDHRY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 1 0 T H MAY , 20 2 1 . VR/ - 4 ITA NO. 6 8 / VIZ /2020 ( REGANA SRINIVASA RAO ) COPY TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE - REGANA SRINIVASA RAO, PROP. SRI VENKATA RAMANA WINES, CANTONMENT, VIZIANAGARAM. 2. THE REVENUE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 2, VIZIANAGARAM. 3. THE PR. CIT - 1, VISAKHAPATNAM. 4. THE CIT(A) - 1 , VISAKHAPATNAM. 5. THE D.R . , VISAKHAPATNAM. 6. GUARD FILE. BY ORDER (VUKKEM RAMBABU) SR. PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT, VISAKHAPATNAM.