DILIP GHOSH,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-53(4), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal filed by the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 22.07.2015. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee on the said date as well as on the subsequent date, when the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 09.09.2015. Thereafter the appeal of the assessee was fixed for hearing on 01.12.2015, when again none appeared on behalf of the assessee. The hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 21.12.2015. On 21.12.2015, the assessee sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 06.01.2016. On 06.01.2016, i.e. today, none has appeared on behalf of the assessee ./2014 Assessment year: 2002-2003 Page 2 of 2 nor any application for adjournment has been filed. 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.