M/S. AMODINI MARKETING PVT. LTD.,NEW DELHI vs. ITO, NEW DELHI

The Assessee/Appellant, has filed the present appeal on feeling aggrieved against the order dated 20.10.2014 impugned herein, passed by Ld. CIT (A), New Delhi.

From the records, it is observed that the due notice for the date of hearing i.e. 24th July 2018, was sent through RPAD, however the same could not be served and received back with remarks of the postman that ‘No such Firm in this address, returned to sender’. Even none appeared on behalf of the assessee nor has filed any application for adjournment, therefore considering the peculiar facts and circumstances, we do not have any option except to dismiss the appeal of the assessee on non-prosecution. As it is well settled that the law assists only those who are vigilant of their rights, and not those who sleep over them. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum "VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT". The Tribunal, in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Limited, 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), also held that mere issuance of notice under Rule 19 itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address. In the present appeal also the notice to the assessee/Appellant could not be served on the address given in form-36, hence following the ratio laid down in CIT vs. Multiplan India Limited (supra), the present appeal stands dismissed for want of prosecution, with a liberty to the assessee to move appropriate application and correct the defect whatsoever in the memo about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the appeal.

In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on this 24TH day of July, 2018.