Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Detected automatically from the text. The count shows how many other judgments on BharatTax rely on the same authority.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, KOLKATA ‘B’ BENCH, KOLKATA
Before: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi
Date of concluding the hearing : February 11, 2016 Date of pronouncing the order : February 11, 2016
O R D E R Per Shri P.M. Jagtap :- This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Siliguri dated 16.01.2013 for the assessment year 2009-10.
In this case, the hearing fixed on 09.12.2015 was adjourned by the Bench to 05.01.2016 at the request made by the assessee in writing. The Bench, however, did not function on 05.01.2016 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 11.02.2016. At the time of hearing fixed on 11.02.2016, i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the notice of the said hearing was given to both the sides through notice ./2013 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 2 board. It appears from this conduct of the assessee that it 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, we 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 February 11, 2016.