AVT IMPEX P.LTD,NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-3(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 24.01.2019 impugned herein, passed by the learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-15, Delhi (in short ‘ld. Commissioner’) u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the assessment year 2010-11.

[2]

After detailed analysis of the information so received, the Assessing Officermade an addition of Rs.50,00,000/- to the returned income of Assessee u/s. 68 of the Act vide assessment order dated 24.11.2016 passed u/s. 143(3)/147 of the Act., by observing that the undisclosed income amounting to Rs.50,00,000/- (Rs.10,00,000/- from S.K. Jain Group of companies and Rs.40,00,000/- from TarunGoel group of companies) were introduced in the account of the assessee as share capital/premium/loans and the assessee company failed to discharge its onus u/s. 68 of the Act with regard to identity of the investors, their creditworthiness and genuineness of the transactions.

[3] dismissed the appeal of the Assesseein limine for want of prosecution on behalf of the Assessee.

6.1 From the impugned order, it reflects that though the Ld. Ld. Commissioner gave various opportunities of hearing to the Assessee but the Assessee attended few and sought adjournments only and most of time remained absent therefore the Ld. CIT(A) by observing that the Assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal, dismissed the Assessee’s appeal.

[4] 6.2 We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Assessee did not bother itself to appear and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after affording opportunity of being heard. Even before us also, the assesse did not appear.

6.3 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, jurasubveniunt(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 peculiar factsthat the Ld. Commissioner has passed order in cryptic manner without deciding the issue with logical reasons under the facts and circumstances of the case, we deem it appropriate to remand the instant case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits, suffice to say by affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the Assessee/Appellant, in order to follow the principle of natural justice.

[5] 6.4 We also deem 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.

Order pronounced in open Court on 02/06/2022.