M/S CAPSO INDUSTRIES,HOOGHLY vs. ITO, WD-1(2), HOOGHLY, HOOGHLY

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 22.04.2016. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned by the Bench to 04.05.2016 with a direction to the Registry to issue fresh notice of the said hearing to the assessee at the address given in the appeal memo by Registered Post with A/D. On 04.05.2016, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 25.05.2016 as announced in the open Court and taken note of by the ld. Authorized Representative of the assessee. On 25.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking ./2016 Assessment year: 2010-2011 Page 2 of 2 adjournment has been filed. It is also noted that the specific defects pointed out by the Registry in the appeal filed by the assessee by issuing defect notice have not been rectified by the assessee. Keeping in view all these facts of the case, it appears that the assessee 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.