MD. NAUSAD ALAM,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1, RAIGANJ, UTTAR DINAJPUR

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee belatedly was initially fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 18.11.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date on the ground that he was out of station. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was again fixed for hearing before the Tribunal on 23.01.2017. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 24.02.2017 with the direction to the Registry to issue the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D. On 24.02.2017, none again appeared on behalf of the assessee and in order to give one more chance to the assessee, the hearing was adjourned to 27.03.2017 with a direction to the Registry to send one more notice to the assessee at ./2016 Assessment year: 2011-2012 Page 2 of 2 the address given in the appeal memo by Registered Post with A/D. On 27.03.2017, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee 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.