DR SARBAJIT GUHA NIYOGI,KOLKATA vs. ITO,WD-22(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 21.09.2016. The assessee however sought adjournment on the said date as well as on subsequent dates i.e. 15.11.2016, 27.12.2016, 01.03.2017, 05.04.2017, 02.06.2017, 05.07.2017 and 17.08.2017 on one pretext or the other. Thereafter, the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 25.11.2017. 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 26.10.2017 with the direction to the registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the 2 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Dr. Sarbojit Guha Niyogi appeal memo by RPAD. On 26.10.2017 i.e. today none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this conduct of the assessee, it appears 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 Halkar 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 27th October, 2017. Sd/- (P.M. Jagtap) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 27/10/2017 Biswajit, Sr. PS Copy of order forwarded to: