RAMYA CONSTRUCTIONS LIMITED,VIJAYAWADA vs. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2(1), VIJAYAWADA

Facts of the case in brief are that the Assessee is engaged in real estate business, filed its return of income admitting total income of Rs.1,42,26,190/-. The assessment was completed u/sec. 143(3) of the Act on 31/03/2015 and the income was assessed at Rs.1,78,69,931/- (M/s. Ramya Constructions Ltd.) by making certain disallowances. Aggrieved by the order of the AO, Assessee challenged the assessment order before the ld. Commissioner, who issued several notices to the Assessee, but of no avail, therefore the Ld, Commissioner passed impugned order as ex-parte by relying upon the judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Roshan Di Hatti Vs. CIT (107 ITR 938) and A. Govindarajulu Mudaliar Vs. CIT [(1958) 34 ITR 807 (SC)].

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Appellant failed to give any plausible reason for non-appearance before the Ld. Commissioner therefore, although the instant appeal of the Appellant 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, jura subveniunt (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 see whether it is possible to entertain his grievance if it is genuine. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances to the effects that the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the impugned order on merits, therefore in the interest of justice and for the just decision of case, it would be appropriate to restore back the instant case to the file of the Ld. CIT(E) for decision afresh on merits, within 06 months of this (M/s. Ramya Constructions Ltd.) order, suffice to say, while affording proper and reasonable opportunity(s) of being heard to the Appellant, hence ordered accordingly. We may clarify that in case of further failure or default by the appellant before the Ld. Commissioner then in that eventuality the appellant shall not be entitled for any leniency and the Ld. Commissioner shall be at liberty to decide the appeal of the appellant in accordance with law, while considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.

In the result, appeal filed by the appellant stands allowed for statistical purposes.

Sd/- sd/- (D.S. SUNDER SINGH) (N.K. CHOUDHRY) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 27th April, 2021. vr/- Copy to: