VIKRAMADITY SINGH,SILIGURI vs. I.T.O WD - 2(2),SILIGURI, SILIGURI

In this case, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed today, i.e. on 29.02.2016. The notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D has been returned by the Postal Authorities unserved with a remark “addressee expired, hence returned to sender”. It is seen that the intimation of the death of the & 1171/KOL./2013 Assessment years: 2003-2004 & 2004-2005 Page 2 of 3 assessee is not placed on record. No efforts have also been taken to bring the legal heirs on record so as to enable the Registry to serve the notice of hearing after necessary verification. The Registry has also pointed out certain defects in these appeals filed by the assessee, but the same have not been rectified even after the communication of the same to the assessee. Keeping in view all these facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that the assessee or his successors are not seriously interested in prosecuting these appeals 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, we treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.