M/S. KAMAYANI INFRASTRUCTURE PVT. LTD., ,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 9(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A)- 12, Kolkata dated 31.03.2017 passed ex-parte whereby he dismissed the appeal of the assessee.

The appeal filed by the assessee in this case was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 26.06.2018. None however appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. In order to give one more opportunity to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 26.07.2018 with the direction to the Registry to send notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo by RPAD. On 26.07.2018 i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by RPAD has come back with remark “Addressee Moved”. The assessee thus has not even bothered to inform its new address in order to enable the Registry to serve the notice of hearing. It is also observed that there was a similar non-compliance on the part of the assessee before the Ld.CIT(A) resulting into ex-parte order passed by Ld.CIT(A). Keeping in view this casual, 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.