PURNIMA GHORAI,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-2, HALDIA, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was earlier fixed for hearing on 27.10.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 19.12.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee through Department. On 19.12.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed insptie of the fact that the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee through Department has ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 been duly served, a proof of which is placed on record. It appears from this conduct of the assesese that she 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 19, 2016.