M/S COMMERCIAL SALES,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-42(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 22.04.2016. The assessee, however, filed an application seeking adjournment of the said date. Although none appeared on behalf of the assessee on 22.04.2016, the hearing fixed on the said date was adjourned by the Bench to 04.05.2016 by granting the application of the assessee for adjournment. On 04.05.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that the assessee is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2006-2007 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 May 04, 2016.