BASAVARAJ G KALLIMATH ,DHARWAD vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-1(4), HUBLI

None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing today i.e., on 25.04.2019. It is seen from the record that even on earlier occasions, the learned AR for the assessee sought adjournments of hearings on behalf of the assessee and has till date not put forward any submissions whatsoever in support of the grounds raised by the assessee in this appeal.

In view of the facts and circumstances of the case as narrated above, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal on hand. The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the assessee’s appeal is dismissed.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed.