2015 (12) TMI 1843 - AT - Income Tax

Dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution - HELD THAT - During the course of hearing today nobody was present on behalf of the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through Registered Post on 05.11.2015 which has not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. We find that on earlier occasion when the case was listed the matter was adjourned at the request of the assessee. It therefore appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter. The law aids those who are vigilant not those who sleep upon their rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D we treat this appeal as unadmitted.

Summary

Issues:
Non-appearance of assessee during the hearing leading to dismissal of appeal for non-prosecution.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the assessee against the order of CIT(A)-XXII, New Delhi. During the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee, and no adjournment was requested. The notice of hearing was sent via Registered Post, which was not returned. It was noted that on a previous occasion, the case was adjourned at the request of the assessee, indicating a lack of interest from the assessee's side to pursue the matter.

The tribunal invoked the principle that the law aids those who are vigilant, citing the maxim "VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT." Referring to rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and the decision in CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., the appeal was treated as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance and lack of interest in prosecuting the case.

The tribunal also cited judgments from the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court and the Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court, emphasizing that if the party fails to appear or assist in the case, the court is not obligated to proceed with the reference. Additionally, the tribunal referred to a decision by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another, highlighting that filing an appeal is not sufficient; active pursuit is essential.

Based on the precedents and legal principles, the tribunal dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, following the approach taken in the cases mentioned. The final order was pronounced on 10.12.2015, whereby the appeal filed by the assessee was dismissed due to non-prosecution.