SOUMEN MANNA,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ACIT, CIR-HALDIA,, PURBA MEDINIPUR

In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee on the date of hearing fixed on 20.07.2016 nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo has been duly served, a proof of which is available on record. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2015 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2

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 August 10, 2016.