SRI VICKY JAISWAL ,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 23(1), HOOGHLY , HOOGHLY

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 03.12.2018. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 10.01.2019. On 10.01.2019, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 16.01.2019. On 16.01.2019, none, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assesese, the hearing was adjourned by the Bench to 14.02.2019 Assessment Year: 2013-2014 Shri Vicky Jaiswal with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 14.02.2019, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this non-cooperative and non-compliant attitude of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal.

The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the well known dictum - “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT –vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 14, 2019.