SHAFIQ AHMED QASBA,SRINAGAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 3(3),, SRINAGAR

At the outset, it is observed that there is a delay of 8 days in filing of the instant appeal on which the Ld. DR did not raise any specific objection, hence, considering the delay is miniscule nature, we are inclined to condone the delay and therefore the delay condoned .

Though the assessee has filed the adjournment application, however we realized that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the impugned order as ex-parte hence, we feel it appropriate to decline the adjournment and to proceed with the matter.

From the order it reflects that though various opportunities have been given to the assessee by issuing the notices from time to time, however, the assessee neither attended the appellate proceedings nor filed any adjournment application and in that eventuality it was observed by the Ld. CIT(A) that the appellant is not interested in pursuing its appeal, therefore, he was pleased to dismiss the appeal.

We have given our thoughtful consideration to the order impugned herein. The Appellant did not bother himself 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 behaviour 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) has not passed 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.