SMT RAKSHA SAHA,UTTAR DINAJPUR vs. ITO, WD-1, RAIGANJ, RAIGANJ

In this case, an appeal filed by the assessee with a delay of 440 days was initially fixed for hearing on 15.03.2016. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 08.04.2016. On 08.04.2016, nobody, 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 she is not seriously interested in prosecuting this appeal filed before the Tribunal. ./2016 Assessment year: 2003-2004 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.