Shri Bimal Paul, Silchar V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Silchar

MA 13/GTY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2020] 110 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7736 (ITAT-GUWAHATI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 8 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Miscellaneous Application
• Pronouncement Date: 17-07-2020
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2011-2012
• Appeal Filed On: 09-07-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: M C OMI NINGSHEN
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice
• Section: 22

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GAUHATI ECOURT, AT KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JM &DR. A.L.SAINI, AM M A NOS.12 & 13/GAU/2018 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO. 211/GAU/2014 & 08/GAU/2016) ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 & 2011-12 SHRI BIMAL PAUL PROP. M/S. LOKENATH ENTERPRISE RICE MARKET, FATAK BAZAR SILCHAR 788001, ASSAM. VS. ITO, WARD 1, SILCHAR AAYAKAR BHAWAN, PWD ROAD SILCHAR 788001, CACHAR ASSAM. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO.: AJMPP 9568 K (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY :NONE RESPONDENT BY :SHRI M.C. OMI NINGSHEN, ADDL. CIT, S R. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 12/06/2020 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17/07/2020 / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI: BY THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS, THE ASSESSEE A PPLICANT HAS REQUESTED FOR RECALLING OF THE ORDER DATED 06.12.2017 PASSED BY THE ITAT GAUHATI BENCH E-COURT AT KOLKATA, IN ITA NO.211/GAU/2014 AND IT A NO.08/GAU/2016, FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS2010-11 AND 2011-12. 2.SINCE, THE ISSUES INVOLVED IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ARE COMMON AND IDENTICAL; THEREFORE, THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATI ONS HAVE BEEN HEARD TOGETHER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER. 3. IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS THE ASSESSEE HAS SUBMITTED AS FOLLOWS :- MOST RESPECTFULLY, THE APPELLANT BEGS TO STATE AND SUBMIT THAT THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT RECEIVED THE HONBLE ITATS ORDER ON 20.01 .2018. THE ORDER SHOWS THAT SHRI BIMAL PAUL MA NOS. 12 & 13/GAU/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 & 2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 2 22 2 THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE APPELLANT BEFORE THE HONBLE ITAT FOR THE A/Y 2010-11 AND 2011-12 HAVE BEEN DISMISSED ON THE GROU ND OF NON-PROSECUTION. THAT SIR, THE APPELLANT BEGS TO INFORM THAT THERE W AS NO NEGLIGENCE ON HIS PART, A/R OF THE APPELLANT SHRI N.C. TALUKDAR, ADVOCATE A PPEARED ON 25.07.2017 TO REPRESENT THE CASE FOR THE A/Y 2010-11. DURING THE COURSE OF HEARING, THE HONBLE MEMBER ADVISED THE A/R TO SUBMIT HIS ARGUMENT IN WR ITING THEREAFTER HEARING OF THE CASE ON 25.07.2017 CLOSED. ACCORDINGLY, IN RESP ONSE TO THE HEARING DATE 27.11.2017, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION WAS DISPATCHED BY SPEED POST ON 07.11.2017 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER ES795878824IN. THE APPE LLANT PRAYED FOR DECISION OF THE HONBLE ITAT ON THE BASIS OF HIS WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 23.07.2017 AND ALSO THE SUBMISSION DISPATCHED ON 07 .11.2017. THAT SIR, THE APPELLANT SENT A FAX MESSAGE ON 21.07 .2017 SEEKING GRANT OF TIME UP TO 31.12.2017FOR THE A/Y 2011-12. IN CONNECTION WIT H THE HEARING DATE OF BOTH THE YEARS ON 11.09.2017, A WRITTEN SUBMISSION FOR THE A .Y. 2010-11 AND A PETITION FOR THE A/Y 2011-12 SEEKING GRANT OF TIME UP TO 31.12.2 017 WERE SENT BY SPEED POST ON 30.08.2017 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NUMBER ES7231714 581N AND ES723171461IN. THAT SIR, IN RESPONSE TO THE HEARING DATE 27.11.201 7 FOR THE A/Y 2011-12, THE APPELLANT SUBMITTED A WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 06.1 1.2017, WHICH WAS DISPATCHED BY SPEED POST ON 07.11.2017 VIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NU MBER ES795878824IN. THE APPELLANT PRAYED FOR DECISION OF THE HONBLE IT AT ON THE BASIS OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 06.11.2017. IN VIEW OF THE FACTS, THE APPELLANT PRAYS FOR RESTO RATION OF THE APPEALS FOR BOTH THE A/Y 2010-11 AND 2011-12 FIX THE DATE OF HEARING AND MAY DECIDE THE CASES, IF PERMITTED BY LAW, ON THE BASIS OF HIS WRITTEN SUBMI SSIONS, THE APPELLANT HAS NOTHING MORE TO SAY IN ADDITION TO THE WRITTEN SUBM ISSIONS. 4.HAVING GONE THROUGH THE ABOVE SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, WE NOTE THAT THE MAIN GRIEVANCE OF ASSESSEE IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS A PPLICATIONSARE THAT THE TRIBUNAL, WHILE ADJUDICATING ASSESSEE`S APPEAL DID NOT CONSIDER ASSESSEE`S WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS DATED 23.07.2017 AND WRITTEN SUBMISSION DATED 07.11.2017. 5. WE HAVE HEARD LD DR FOR THE REVENUE AND CAREFULL Y GONE THROUGH THE GROUNDS RAISED IN THESE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS ALONG WI TH THE DOCUMENTS FURNISHED AND OTHER MATERIALS BROUGHT ON RECORD. WE NOTE THAT TH IS TRIBUNAL, WITHOUT CONSIDERING SHRI BIMAL PAUL MA NOS. 12 & 13/GAU/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 & 2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 3 33 3 THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE, HAS ADJUDI CATED THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE WHICH IS APPARENT MISTAKE AND NEEDS TO BE RECTIFIED .IF A CONSCIOUS MISTAKE IS A MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD, THERE IS NO REASON FO R NOT RECTIFYING THE SAME UNDER THE PROVISIONS OF LAW. TO ERR IS HUMAN BUT THERE CA NNOT BE ANY JUSTIFICATION FOR PERPETUATING AN ERROR. IN HIS INIMITABLE WORDS, JUS TICE BHAGWATI, IN THE CASE OF DISTRIBUTORS (BARODA) (P) LTD. VS. UNION OF INDIA ( 1985) 47 CTR (SC) 349 : (1985) 155 ITR 120 (SC), HAD OBSERVED AS FOLLOWS : 'TO PERPETUATE AN ERROR IS NO HEROISM. TO RECTIFY I T IS THE COMPULSION OF JUDICIAL CONSCIENCE. IN THIS, WE DERIVE COMFORT AND STRENGTH FROM WISE AND INSPIRING WORDS OF JUSTICE BRONSON IN PIERCE VS. DELAMETER : A JUDGE OUGHT TO BE WISE ENOUGH TO KNOW THAT HE IS FALLIBLE, AND, THEREFORE, EVER READY TO LEARN ; GREAT AND HONEST ENOUGH TO DISCARD ALL MERE PRIDE OF OPINION AND FOLLOW THE TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY LEAD; AND COURAGEOUS ENOUGH TO ACKNOWLEDGE HIS ERRORS.' 6. WE NOTE THAT TRIBUNAL HAS DISMISSED BOTH THE APP EALS OF THE ASSESSEEE ON ACCOUNT OF NON-PROSECUTION AND DID NOT CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 23.07.2017AND 07.11.2017. THESE WR ITTEN SUBMISSIONS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WELL IN ADVANCE, THAT IS, BEFORE TH E DATE OF HEARING THEREFORE TRIBUNAL OUGHT TO CONSIDER THESE WRITTEN SUBMISSION S. NOT TO CONSIDER THE WRITTEN SUBMISSIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE PRINCIPL E OF NATURAL JUSTICE THEREFORE IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND FAIR PLAY WE SHOULD REC ALL THESE ORDERS, AND ACCORDINGLY WE RECALL BOTH THE ORDERS. THE REGISTRY IS DIRECTED TO FIX THE APPEALS FOR HEARING ON MERIT IN USUAL COURSE. 7. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIO NS (M.A.NOS. 12 AND 13) OF THE ASSESSEE ARE ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 17.07.2020 SD/- SD/- ( A.T. VARKEY ) (A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER / DATE: 17/07/2020 ( BISWAJIT, SR.PS ) SHRI BIMAL PAUL MA NOS. 12 & 13/GAU/2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 & 2011-12 P PP PA AA AG GG GE EE E | || | 4 44 4 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SHRI BIMAL PAUL. 2. ITO, WARD 1, SILCHAR. 3. C.I.T(A)- 4. C.I.T.- GUWAHATI 5. CIT(DR), GAUHATIBENCH, GUWAHATI. 6. GUARD FILE. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY / DDO / H. O. O ITAT, GAUHA TI BENCH