This detailed analysis explores the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal’s decision in the case between Saroj Malik and the Income Tax Officer of Ward-46(3), New Delhi, for the assessment year 2015-16. The case underlines the crucial role of active participation in judicial proceedings.
Saroj Malik, represented by counsel, appealed against the decision made by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) -16. The appeal was dismissed due to her frequent non-appearance and requests for adjournments, which led to the dismissal of her appeal on procedural grounds rather than merits.
The tribunal highlighted the principle of vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt, emphasizing that the law assists those vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. Despite this, the Tribunal recognized the possibility of human error and opted to remand the case back to the CIT(A) for a decision on merit, stressing the need for the appellant’s active cooperation in the proceedings.
The case serves as a significant reminder of the responsibilities of litigants to engage actively with their legal proceedings. It underscores the judiciary’s role in ensuring justice and the consequences of non-participation. The Tribunal’s decision to remand the case, rather than outright dismissal, reflects a balance between strict adherence to procedural laws and the flexibility to accommodate genuine errors.
The appeal of Saroj Malik highlights the critical aspect of participation in legal processes. While the law supports the vigilant, it also provides room for reconsideration under genuine circumstances, ensuring that the doors to justice remain open for those willing to engage actively.
Dismissal Due to Non-Participation in ITA 846/DEL/2019: Saroj Malik vs ITO, Ward-46(3)
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform