IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH B, KOLKATA (BEFORE SHRI P. M. JAGTAP, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANET HRA RAVI, J.M.) ITA NOS. 1679/KOL/2013 : ASSTT. YEAR : 2006-07 ALEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH MANI SQUARE LTD.) PAN: AABCM 8131G VS I.T.O., WARD-12(1), KOLKATA (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI GHYAS UD DIN, JCIT, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT :20.07.2016 ORDER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M. THIS APPEAL IS PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 14.01.2013 PASSED BY THE CIT(APPEALS)-XII, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NO. 528/XII/12(1)/08-09 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07 PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE I.T.ACT. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF THE ASSESSEE TODAY I.E., ON 20.07.2016, DESPITE THE FACT THAT TH E DATE OF HEARING ON 20.07.2016 WAS INFORMED TO THE ASSESSEE, WHEN IT WA S LAST FIXED FOR HEARING ON 01.06.2016 AND THE ASSESSEE FILED ADJOUR NMENT PETITION ON THAT DATE. IT IS, THEREFORE, PRESUMED THAT IN SPITE OF DATE OF HEARING BEING INFORMED, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR BEFORE THE BENCH ON THE DATE OF HEARING OR EVEN SEND ANY ADJOU RNMENT PETITION. ON EARLIER SEVERAL OCCASIONS ALSO, THE A PPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING BUT THE ASSESSEE EITHER DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF 2 ITA NOS.1679/KOL/2013 A LEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 HEARING OR SOUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT. THIS TIME ALSO, THE ASSESSEE DID NOT APPEAR AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR EVEN HE S OUGHT FOR ADJOURNMENT. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT THE ASSES SEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DI CTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROVI SIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AS WERE CON SIDERED IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. 4. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKA R VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 5. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND T HERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 6. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-4 78) HELD THAT THE 3 ITA NOS.1679/KOL/2013 A LEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2006-07 APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA , WE DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSE CUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 20 TH JULY, 2016. SD/- SD/- ( P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 20/07/2016 TALUKDAR/SR.PS COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1 ALEX MERCHANTS PVT. LTD. (SINCE MERGED WITH MANI SQ UARE LTD.), 164/1, MANIKTALA MAIN ROAD, 9 TH FLOOR, E.M.BYPASS, KOLKATA- 700 054. 2 ITO, WARD-12(1), KOLKATA 3 THE CIT(A), 4 5 CIT, 5. D.R. TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA