SHRI SARAD GUPTA,KOLKATA vs. ITO, WD-33(1), KOLKATA, KOLKATA

In this case, the appeal of the assessee was initially fixed for hearing on 24.07.2015. The assessee, however, sought adjournment on the said date and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 31.08.2015. On 31.08.2015, the Bench did not function and hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 10.09.2015. On 10.09.2015, the assessee again sought adjournment and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 13.10.2015. The Bench did not function on 13.10.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was ./2014 Assessment year: 2009-2010 Page 2 of 3 adjourned to 01.12.2015. None, however, appeared on behalf of the assessee at the time of hearing fixed on 01.12.2015 and the hearing, therefore, was adjourned to 05.01.2016. The assessee again sought adjournment on 05.01.2016 and accordingly the hearing was adjourned to 27.01.2016. On 27.01.2016, i.e. today, nobody has again appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application seeking adjournment has been filed despite the fact that the said date was announced in the open Court at the time of earlier hearing fixed on 05.01.2016. Keeping in view all these facts clearly evident from the record, 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, I 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 January 27, 2016.