SK. ALTAF HOSSAIN,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WARD - 1(4), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

This appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 07.09.2017. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date as well as on the subsequent two dates when his appeal was fixed for hearing on 14.09.2017 and 01.11.2017. The hearing thereafter was fixed on 11.12.2017, but none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 04.01.2018 but since the Bench did not function on the said date, the hearing was adjourned to 12.02.2018. On 12.02.2018 i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee Assessment Year: 2008-2009 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, I 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 12th day of February, 2018. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) Accountant Member Kolkata, the 12th day of February, 2018 Copies to : (1) Sk. Altaf Hossain, Village-Chatrasol, P.O. Ghole, Hooghly-712 401 2) Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(4), Hooghly, G.T. Road, Khadina More, P.O. Chinsurah, Hooghly-712 101 (3) CIT(Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (4) CIT- , Kolkata, (5) The Departmental Representative (6) Guard File TRUE COPY By Order