DCIT, NEW DELHI vs. SH. UPINDER KUMAR WIDHANI, NEW DELHI

have a grievance against the order. The following facts recorded by the CIT(A) remain unrebutted on record and cannot be treated lightly :-

“Ld.AO was personally called upon by the undersigned and requested to expedite the report. Further a final opportunity was given to the Ld.AO vide letter dated 19.05.2014 and he was also requested to forward the case record. No report under Rule 46A of the I.T.Rule, or case record received from the Ld.AO. Since Ld.AO is not responding to the notices issued by the undersigned, the appeal is decided on the basis of submissions made by the appellant. The fresh evidences submitted by the appellant is admitted.”

6.1. No argument had been advanced to address why repeatedly the AO failed to file a Remand Report. In the face of this failure on the part of the AO, the AO cannot be said to have any grievance.

6.2. In the facts of the present case it is seen that the CIT(A) considering the issues concluded the issue as under:-

I.T.A .No.-4402/Del/2014 amount from his wife. She was working under the office of the Chief of the Naval Staff. After the death of appellant's spouse he has received shares and bank balance including the GPF amount of Rs.12,00,000/-. Out of that and sale proceed of shares he has invested in mutual funds. All these details have been forwarded to the ld.AO for his comments. But Id.AO has not objected the explanations given by the appellant.

6.3. No infirmity in the above conclusion has been pointed out by the Revenue. It is further seen that no argument or pleading addressing the fact why the AO repeatedly failed to respond has been argued. In the absence of any factual inaccuracy being pointed out in the above finding, I find no good reason to interfere with the aforesaid finding. Qua the procedural infirmity it is seen that as per record the evidences were confronted to the AO repeated reminders were admittedly sent requesting the case record and or the Report. Finally in the absence of any response from the AO, the CIT(A) proceeded to consider the same. In the absence of any rebuttal on these material facts, I find that in the facts of the present case the AO without even caring to address his own inactions had no occasion to pose a grievance moreover what is the grievance and why remand be directed has not been addressed. No doubt the Statute vests the AO with the right to file an appeal if the Revenue is aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A) but the Right to file the appeal is coupled with the duty and the responsibility to stay vigilant, alert and attentive towards his own responsibilities. The AO cannot be allowed to remain unresponsive to the reminders to peruse the fresh evidences admitted by the CIT(A) and if he chooses to I.T.A .No.-4402/Del/2014 ignore the same then he does so at his peril. The AO cannot be said to be aggrieved by his own repeated inactions. It may not be out of context to quote from Parashuram Pottery Works Co.Ltd. vs ITO [1977] 106 ITR 1 (SC) wherein their Lordships were very categoric in holding that “it has been said that the taxes are the price that we pay for civilization. If so, it is essential that those who are entrusted with the task of calculating and realizing that price should familiarize themselves with the relevant provisions and become well-versed with the law on the subject. Any remissness on their part can only be at the cost of the national exchequer and must necessarily result in loss of revenue. At the same time, we have to bear in mind that the policy of law is that there must be a point of finality in all legal proceedings, that stale issues should not be reactivated beyond a particular stage and that lapse of time must induce repose in and set at rest judicial and quasi-judicial controversies as it must in other spheres of human activity.”

6.4. Being satisfied by the reasoning and finding and in the absence of any infirmity therein, the departmental grounds are dismissed.