Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, VISAKHAPATNAM BENCH, VISAKHAPATNAM
Before: SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, HON’BLE & SHRI D.S. SUNDER SINGH, HONBLE
PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER
This appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 29/11/2019 impugned herein passed by the ld.CIT(A)-2, Visakhapatnam u/sec. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "Act") for the A.Y. 2010-11.
From the impugned order it reflects that though the Ld. CIT(A) afforded various opportunities of hearing to the Assessee, however the Assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor filed any adjournment application and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) while observing that none appeared for the appellate hearing and the case is finalized based on the information available on rerecord. Consequently the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, against which the Assessee preferred this appeal.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Appellant did not bother itself to appear and co- ordinate with appellate proceedings and failed to prosecute its appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) and before us as well even after availing various opportunities and in spite of receiving the notices of hearing of this appeal, as ordered by Bench through Postal Department and Revenue Department.
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, 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, therefore, considering the facts that the Ld. CIT(A) did not pass the order under challenge on merit and as a speaking order, we consider it appropriate and proper to remand back the instant case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for passing speaking order on merits, while affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee/Appellant, in order to follow the principle of natural justice.
(Nusumu Venkata Rambabu) We also consider it appropriate to direct the Assessee/Appellant 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, appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes.
Order Pronounced in open Court on this 12th day of Feb., 2021.