M/S. MA CHANDI DURGA ISPAT PVT. LTD.,RANIGANJ vs. ACIT, CC-XXX, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

At the time of hearing fixed in this case today, i.e. 11.07.2016, none has 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 has been returned back by the postal authorities undelivered with a remark “insufficient address”. The assessee thus has not even furnished its full address in order to facilitate the service of notice of hearing. It appears from this casual and negligent ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 approach 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.