SHRI NARESH KUMAR GUPTA,HOWRAH vs. ITO, WARD-35(2), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 24.08.2015. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date as well as on the subsequent dates, i.e. 07.09.2015 and 09.12.2015 when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing. Even today, i.e. on 05.01.2016, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee and even the notice of the said hearing sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo, has come back undelivered with the remark by the Postal Authorities “left”. ./2014 Assessment year: 2007-2008 Page 2 of 3 This casual and negligent attitude of the assessee clearly shows that he 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, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed.