Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap
This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Durgapur dated 27.03.2015.
In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 18.07.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the aid date and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned by the Bench to 15.09.2016 with a direction to the Registry to issue the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D at the address of the assessee available on record. On 15.09.2016, the Bench did not function and the hearing, accordingly, was adjourned to 07.11.2016. On 07.11,2016, the ld. D.R. sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 20.12.2016 as announced in the open Court. On 20.12.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assesese 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, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.