What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal in limine without deciding on merits. Considering the possibility of unintentional lapses by the assessee, the Tribunal decided to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.

The assessee's appeal was dismissed by the CIT(A) and the Assessing Officer's order was affirmed. The notice of hearing to the assessee remained unserved, indicating the assessee's address was incorrect.

What were the issues?

Whether the appeal should be decided ex parte due to non-service of notice, or if it should be remanded for a decision on merits.

Avon Marktrade Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs ACIT | ITAT Delhi 2022

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DELHI BENCH ‘A’ NEW DLEHI

Before: SHRI ANIL CHATURVEDI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY

Hearing: 09.06.2022

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 17.05.2019, impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-1, New Delhi (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2016-17, whereby the ld. Commissioner dismissed the appeal filed by the Assessee and affirmed the assessment order dated 28.11.2018 passed by the Assessing Officer.

[2]

The notice of hearing of this appeal was issued to the Assesseewhichremained un-served and returned by the postal department with the remarks “left”, meaning thereby, the Assessee’s office is not situated at the address given in Form No. 36. Hence, we are constrained to decide this appeal as ex parte.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Assessee did not bother itself to appear and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after availing various opportunity of being heard. 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, jurasubveniunt(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 behavior than an abstract 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 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 [3] see whether it is possible to entertain his grievance if it is genuine, therefore, considering the peculiar facts that the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order under challenge on merit but dismissed the appeal in limine, we deem it appropriate to remand back the instant case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee/Appellant.

We also deem it appropriate to direct the Assessee to extend its full co-operation and participation in the appellate proceedings before the Ld. CIT(A) as and when would be required and in case of further default, the Assessee shall not be subjected to any leniency.

In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced in the open court on 15/06/2022

AVON MARKTRADE PVT LTD,NEW DELHI vs. ACIT CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

What did the Tribunal hold?

What were the facts?

What were the issues?

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Recent GST High Court judgments