KAMRAJ RURAL BANK,SAPORE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD -3(3), SRINAGAR
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged that the assessee was inactive but also recognized that unintentional lapses should not permanently bar access to justice. Therefore, the case was remanded back to the CIT(A) for a fresh decision on merits.
What were the facts?
The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution as the assessee failed to attend hearings or file adjournment applications on multiple dates. The assessee had been given various opportunities to present its case.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution should be restored to provide an opportunity for a decision on merits, considering the principle of natural justice.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, DIVISION BENCH, AMRITSAR
Before: SHRI. N.K. SAINI & SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY
Kamraj Rural Bank, Vs. Income Tax Officer Sopore, Baramulla, Ward 3(3), Srinagar Kashmir [PAN No: AAACK 7269A] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Sh. Neeraj Goel (Ld. C.A.) Respondent by: Sh. Charan Dass (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 17.08.2020 Date of pronouncement: 17.08.2020 ORDER
PER N.K. CHOUDHRY, JM:
This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 30-01-2019, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-1, Amritsar u/s. 250(6) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter called as the ‘Act’) for the aforesaid assessment year, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the Assessee, on non- prosecution.
From the impugned order it reflects that though the Ld. CIT(A) fixed the case for hearing on various dates, however on most of the dates, the Assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor filed any adjournment application and therefore the Ld. CIT(A) while observing that the appellant/assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal, dismissed the same.
We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Appellant most of the times, did not bother itself to appear and co-ordinate with appellate proceedings even after affording various opportunities. 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, hence we feel it appropriate and proper to remand back the instant case to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for decision afresh on merits, while affording proper and reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee/appellant, in order to follow the principle of natural justice.
We also feel 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 required and in case of further default, the assessee shall not be subjected to any leniency.
In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.08.2020.
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Tvl. Annai Garden vs. The Commercial Tax Officer / The State Tax OfficerMadras · 15 Oct 2026
- Yadeshwar Mallekedi vs. The State Of TelanganaTelangana · 15 Oct 2026
- Manoj Kumar Das vs. The State Of BiharPatna · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Superwealth Financial Enterprises Private Limited, Khordha vs. Joint Commissioner Good And Service Tax Central Excise, BhubaneswarOrissa · 15 Oct 2026
- Simanchal Sahoo vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST, Odisha, CuttackOrissa · 15 Oct 2026