2016 (3) TMI 1482 - AT - Income Tax

Non pursuing the appeal by assessee - Penalty u/s 271(1)(c) - effect of Non appearance by assessee - assessee did not appear at the time of hearing nor even he sought for adjournment. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter. HELD THAT - As nobody appeared on behalf of the assessee today i.e., on 15.03.2016, despite the fact that the notice for the hearing on 15.03.2016 was sent to the assessee by RPAD on 04.02.2016. It is, therefore, presumed that in spite of notice of hearing being received, the assessee did not appear before the Bench on the date of hearing. On earlier occasions also, the appeal was fixed for hearing but the assessee did not turn up at the time of hearing. This time also, the assessee did not appear at the time of hearing nor even he sought for adjournment. 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. Their Lordships of Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee Another 1979 (5) TMI 4 - SUPREME COURT held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. We dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution

Summary

The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order passed by the CIT(A) for the assessment year 2006-07 under section 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act. The assessee did not appear for the hearing despite receiving notice, leading to the appeal being treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. The appeal was dismissed on 15th March, 2016.