M/S MOTO SCHOOL TRASPORT,ANANTNAG vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-3(4), ANANTNAG
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal acknowledged the assessee's inactivity but, considering the CIT(A) did not decide on merits, remanded the case back. The assessee was directed to cooperate fully in future proceedings.
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 CIT(A) concluded the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeal.
What were the issues?
Whether an appeal dismissed for non-prosecution should be decided on merits, and the application of principles of natural justice and the maxim 'vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt'.
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
M/s Moto School Transport Vs. Income Tax Officer Gulshanabad, Sarnal, Ward-3(4), Anantnag Anantnag, Kashmir [PAN No: AABFM 9516E] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None 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 30-11-2018, 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
2 Moto School Transport V. ITO 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 3 Moto School Transport V. ITO 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 →- Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026