SAJAN KUMAR BANSAL,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WD-47(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 21.04.2016. However, none appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 10.05.2016 with a direction to the Registry to send notice of the said hearing to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. On 10.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. This non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee shows that he is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before this Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 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.