SURESH CHAND JAISWAL,PURBA MEDINIPUR vs. ITO, WD-I, HALDIA, HALDIA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 28.08.2015. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly, the hearing was adjourned to 23.09.2015. The Bench did not function on 23.09.2015 as well as on the couple of occasions thereafter when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 08.11.2015 and 23.11.2015. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 11.12.2015 when none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing, therefore, was again adjourned to 05.01.2016. On 05.01.2016, i.e. today, again none has appeared on behalf of the assessee ./2015 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 3 inspite of the fact that the notice of the said hearing was sent to the assessee by Registered Post with A/D at the address given in the appeal memo. 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.