RAM SANWAR GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-47, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 09.06.2016. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned by the Bench to 04.08.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send the notice of the said hearing by Registered Post with A/D.

At the time of hearing fixed today, i.e. 04.08.2016, neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Even 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 returned back by the postal authorities ./2014 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 2 undelivered with a remark “not known”. The assessee thus has not bothered to inform his new address in order to facilitate the service of notice of hearing. It appears from this conduct of the assessee 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.