GANGA RICE MILL (PVT)LTD,,MURSHIDABAD vs. A.C.I.T CIR - MURSHIDABAD., MURSHIDABAD

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing before the Division Bench on 05.11.2014. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 10.02.2015. Non appeared on behalf of the assesee on 10.02.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 19.05.2015. On 19.05.2015, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the ./2013 Assessment year: 2001-2002 Page 2 of 3 hearing was adjourned to 12.08.2015. The assessee again sought adjournment on 12.08.2015 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 09.11.2015. The Bench did not function on 09.11.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 08.01.2016, the notice of which was given to the parties through Notice Board. On 08.01.2016, i.e. today, none, however, has appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed. Keeping in view this non-compliant and non-cooperative attitude of the assessee, it appears that the assessee 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.