MR BARUN PRAMANIK,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIR-55, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 19.07.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and the hearing accordingly was adjourned to 15.09.2016. On 15.09.2016, the Bench did not function and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 07.11.2016. On 07.11.2016, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the case was adjourned to 20.12.2016. On 20.12.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has put in appearance on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 appears from this conduct of the assesese 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 December 20, 2016.