SRI NIRMAL KR. NANDI, PROP. OF USHA CONSTRUCTION,BANKURA vs. ITO, WARD - 3(1), BANKURA, BANKURA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Durgapur dated 22.06.2017 whereby he confirmed the penalty of Rs. 76,655/- imposed by the AO u/s 271B of the Income tax Act, 1961.

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 07.08.2018. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and accordingly, the hearing was a djourned to 18.09.2018. On 18.09.2018, the assessee sought adjournment and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 12.11.2018. On 12.11.2018, none again appeared on behalf of the assessee. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 29.11.2018. On 29.11.2018, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 31.12.2018. On 2 Sri Nirmal Kr. Nandi (Prop. Usha Construction) Assessment Year: 2013-14 31.12.2018, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 07.02.2019. On 07.02.2019 i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this non- compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee, it appears that the assessee 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 Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution.