Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CIRCUIT ‘SMC’ BENCH, VARANASI
Before: SHRI.VIJAY PAL RAO
SHRI VIJAY PAL RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 9.12.2019 of CIT(A) for the assessment year 2010-11. The assessee has raised the following grounds:- “i. That the assessment order is contrary to the law and facts. ii. Appeal has been filed before the CIT appeal and on every date of hearing mentioned in the appellant order is unjustified since some or other CIT appeal was not on his chair on the date mentioned. iii. Notice dated 29.11.2019 when the date of hearing was fixed on 05.12.2019 itself was received on 21.12.2019. Hence it was not possible for the appellant to attend the case on the date of the hearing. iv. That confirming the assessment order is unjustified. v. That the addition is unjustified and deserves to be deleted.”
Nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee despite the notice sent through registered post as well as on E-mail. Accordingly, I propose to hear and dispose of this appeal ex parte.
I have heard the learned DR and carefully perused the impugned order of the CIT(A). The CIT(A) has stated in the impugned order that the number of opportunities were granted to the assessee from 8.3.2019 to 9.12.2019 but there was no compliance on the part of the assessee. Accordingly, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for non prosecution in para 5 as under:- “5. The aforesaid non-compliance on part of appellant reveals beyond doubt that appellant has nothing to say in the matter of this appeal. It can be concluded that appellant is not interested in prosecution of the present appeal and same is liable to be dismissed on this ground itself. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT”. In view of the above mentioned facts and by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in case of Estate of Late TukojiRaoHolkar vs. CWT (1997) reported in 223 ITR 480 the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.”
Thus, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is neither a speaking order nor passed on the merits of the appeal. Accordingly, in the interest of justice, the impugned order of the CIT(A) is set aside and the matter is remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for deciding the same afresh on merits by a speaking order after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25.05.2022.