2016 (6) TMI 1406 - AT - Income Tax

Assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter - addition u/s 68 - Addition notice sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36 as well as the impugned order was returned back by the Postal Authority with the remarks left - HELD THAT - 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 involved:
Appeal against addition under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 due to non-appearance of the assessee during the hearing.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to an appeal by the assessee against an order confirming the addition of ?25,25,000 made under section 68 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. The appeal was dismissed due to the non-appearance of the assessee during the hearing. Despite the notice sent to the assessee and the return of the notice with the remarks "left" by the Postal Authority, no alternate address was provided by the assessee. This led to the conclusion that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the matter.

The Tribunal emphasized the principle that the law aids those who are vigilant and not those who neglect their rights. Citing the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal treated the appeal as unadmitted due to the non-appearance of the assessee. This decision was supported by previous judgments such as CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, which highlighted that failure to appear or take necessary steps could result in the dismissal of the appeal.

Furthermore, the Tribunal referred to cases like New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT and CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another to emphasize the importance of actively pursuing an appeal, not just filing it. The judgment concluded by dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution, granting the assessee the option to request setting aside the order by providing reasons for non-appearance as per the relevant rules.

In summary, the judgment underscores the significance of active participation and diligence in legal proceedings, highlighting that failure to appear and pursue an appeal can lead to dismissal. The decision was made in accordance with established legal principles and rules governing the conduct of appeals before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.