ONE AD DISPLAY PVT. LTD.,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-11, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal filed by the assessee in this case was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 11.12.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 11.01.2018. On 11.01.2018, none again appeared on behalf of the assessee and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 22.02.2018 with the direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 3 assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 22.02.2018, the Authorized Representative of the assessee sought adjournment on the ground that some more time was required to prepare and file the paper book. The hearing accordingly was adjourned to 09.04.2018. On 09.04.2018, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it 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 April 09, 2018.