SHRI JATINDER KUMAR S/O SHRI KEWAL SINGH,PHILLAUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2, PHAGWARA

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the impugned order dated 17-10-2019, passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-2, Jalandhar 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.

At the outset it was observed by the Bench that there is delay of 90 days in filling of the instant appeal, which has been explained by the assessee by submitting that due to Covid 19 pandemic, the assessee could not file the instant appeal within 2 Jatinder Kumar V. ITO the limitation period prescribed by law for filling of the appeal. The assessee further submitted that the Apex Court extended the limitation period for filling of appeal etc. during the pandemic period. Immediately after over of lockdown, the assessee filed the instant appeal and therefore the delay of 90 days is bona fide and unintentional and therefore prayed for condonation of the same. Ld. DR did not refute the Assessee’s claim qua condonation of delay.

Coming to the merits of the case, 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 4 Jatinder Kumar V. ITO 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.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.08.2020.