M/S. SREKNAB SERVICES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WARD - 30(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 14.06.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 11.08.2016 with the direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 11.08.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even the notice sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo had been returned back by the Postal Authorities undelivered with a remark “left”. The assessee thus has not bothered to inform the new address in ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 order to facilitate the service of notice. It appears from this conduct of the assessee 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.