In.board Of Trustees Of Martyrs Memorial Trustand Another v. Union Of India And Others,Reported In

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKADHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 29[th]DAY OF JANUARY JZQ1L BEFORETHE HON‘'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N. VENUGOPALA GOWD Writ Petition Nos.LOQO//100779/2015 (TIT) BETWEEN M/S VIMAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,299/6, VIMAL, GOOD SHED ROAD,BELGAUM, PAN NO.AAGFV 2109P,REPRESENTED BY ITS PARTNER,KIRAN S/O MARUTIRAO JADHAVAGE: 42 YEARS, OCC: BUSINESS,R/O. M/S VIMAL BUILDERS & DEVELOPERS,299, VIMAL, GOOD SHED ROAD, BELGAUM. ...PETITIONER (BY SRI. SANGRAM S.KULKARNI, ADVOCATE) AN D 1.INCOME TAX OFFICER,WARD 1(1), OPP CIVIL HOSPITALBELGAUM 2.COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) OPP. CIVIL HOSPITAL BELGAUM. .. RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. Y.V. RAVIRAJ, ADVOCATE ) THESE PETITIONS ARE FILED UNDER ARTICLES 2272622/ OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THEIMPUGNED ORDER VIDE ANNEXURE-F DATED: 26.12.2014,PASSED BY THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PANAJIBENCH, PANAJI IN S.A.NO.36/PNJ/2014 & NO.2/76/PNJ/2014S.A.NO.37/PNJ/2014 & S.A. NO.38/PNJ/2014. THESE|PETITIONS|COMINGONFORPRELIMINARYHEARING, THIS DAY, THE COURTMADE THE FOLLOWING: ORDER Appeals filed accompanied by applications for grantof stay having been found to be defective, opportunity wasgranted by the Tribunal, to remove the defects. Advocatefor the petitioner sent a communication and soughttime/adjournment, to remove the defects, on account ofne being unable to sit and work due to back problem. TheTribunal having found, that no ground is made out to grantthe adjournment and being of the opinion that no purposewould be served by keeping the defective applicationspending, in the absence of the appellant and his learnedadvocate, dismissed the applications filed seeking stay ofthe impugned assessment orders. Assailing the said order,these writ petitions were filed. 2.SNrlSangram.S.KulkKarni,jiearnecadvocate,contended tnat the Tribunal nas acted with undue haste Inpassing the impugned order. He submitted that therebeing denial of reasonable opportunity and the impugnedorder being perverse, interference is called for. 3.SNrlY.V.Raviraj,jearnedadvocatefortherespondents, by taking me through the statement ofopjectionsfiled,Submitted thatIn,the.factsandcircumstances of the case, no interference is called for. Hesubmitted that the notified defects having not beenremoved, despite reasonable opportunity having beengranted, the Tribunal being left with no alternative haspassed the impugned order. He made submissions inSupport of the impugned order. 4Perused tne writ record and considered tne rivalcontention. Point for consideration is, whether thepetitioner is entitled to any relief? 5 Stay applications were filed along with the appealsand the defective memos were issued to the appellant, toremove the defects. Though, time was extended, defectsnaving not been removed, the impugned order waspassed. 6.Tnere is no dispute that a communication was sentby the advocate for the appellant/petitioner, enclosing a medical certificate in proof of he being sick and on accountof the same, not being able to attend the Tribunal and takesteps to cure the notified defects. The Tribunal, withouttaking into consideration the reason. stated in thcommunication sent seeking adjournment and also theannexed medical certificate, has passed the impugnedorder, wnereby, the said applications were dismissed. 7 If the advocate for the petitioner/appellant had notsought adjournment on medical grounds, the Tribunalwould have been justified in passing the impugned order.Since adjournment was sought on the ground of illness oftheadvocate,which.WaScertifiedbya medicalpractitioner,the.Tripunal|nasactedwitnmaterialirregularity in not taking into consideration the said factand in passing the impugned order. 8 The Tribunal, if, had dismissed the said applicationsfor non-prosecution, still the impugned order could nothave been interfered with. However, the Tribunal havingneld tnat the assessee could not convince tnat there was a 7 If the advocate for the petitioner/appellant had notsought adjournment on medical grounds, the Tribunalwould have been justified in passing the impugned order.Since adjournment was sought on the ground of illness oftheadvocate,which.WaScertifiedbya medicalpractitioner,the.Tripunal|nasactedwitnmaterialirregularity in not taking into consideration the said factand in passing the impugned order. 8 The Tribunal, if, had dismissed the said applicationsfor non-prosecution, still the impugned order could nothave been interfered with. However, the Tribunal havingneld tnat the assessee could not convince tnat there was a prima facie case and do not have any liquid resources, i.e.decided tne applications on merit, in the absence of theappellant and his advocate, there is a need to interfere.Tnere is lack of application of mind and _ focusconsideration. Except the sentence, noticed supra, there isno reasoning. 9 In.BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF MARTYRS MEMORIAL TRUSTAND ANOTHER Vs. UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS,|reported in (2012)10 SCC 734, Apex Court has held as follows: G22. Brevity in Judgment writing nas not lostits virtue. All long judgments or orders are notgreat nor brief orders are always bad. What isrequired of any judicial decision is due applicationOf mind,ClarityOf reasoning and.focusedconsideration. A slipshod consideration or crypticorder or decision witnout due reflection on tneissues raised in a matter may render sucn decisionunsustainable. Hasty adjudication must be avoided.Eacn and every matter that comes to the courtmustbe|examinedwitn theSerlouSNnessItqceserves. 10.Tnere|ISlack|of|application.of|MING.Non-consideration of the prayer for adjournment sought onmedical ground by the advocate on record is apparent.There is denial of reasonable opportunity. In the circumstances of the case, the impugned order beingirrational, is liable to be interfered with. In the result, these writ petitions are allowed and theimpugned order is quasned. Petitioner is permitted to filefresh applications for grant of stay, if so advised, within aperiod of two weeks from today. Petitioner shall not seekuUnnNecesSaladjournment|anaSnall|extencreadyco-operation to decide tne stay applications and also themain appeals with expedition. Tne Tribunal is directed todecide the appeals, with expedition and within a period ofthree months from the next hearing date. No costs. Kms SD/-JUDGE