ASOKE KUMAR DHAR,KOLKATA vs. DCIT, CIRCLE - 33, KOLKATA, KOLKATA

The appeal is time barred by 26 days. The assessee has submitted a condonation petiition dated 23.03.2011 for condoning the delay on the ground that his accountant, who was looking after the income tax matter had suddenly left the job. ./2011 Assessment year: 2003-2004 Page 2 of 3

The assessee filed the present appeal on 24.03.2011. The date of hearing of this appeal was fixed from time to time. On 05.11.2015, the case was fixed for hearing before the Bench. Even the cause list was also posted on the Internet. However, on the date fixed for, i.e. 05.11.2015 neither anybody appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed before us. Under these facts, we are of the view that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal.

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 subveniunt”.

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 dismissed.