IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, HONBLE JM & SHRI C.D.RAO, HONBLE AM ] / I.T.A NO.1759/KOL/2009 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 M/S. MUJTABA ENTERPRISES, KOL. - VS- ITO, WARD-32(3), KOLKATA 39B, DILKUSHA STREET, KOLKATA 700 017 (PAN:AALFM 8785D) ( /APPELLANT ) ( / RESPONDENT ) DATE OF HEARING: 08.11.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 08.11.2012 FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE DEPARTMENT : SHRI NIRANJAN SATPATI , JCIT, SR.D.R. /ORDER PER SMT.DIVA SINGH, J.M . THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 11.06.2009 OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-XIX, KOLKA TA PERTAINING TO 2006- 2007 ASSESSMENT YEAR. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NONE WAS PRESEN T ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER AND IN THE SEC OND ROUND ALSO, NONE WAS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RE CEIVED. A PERUSAL OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE SAID APPEAL INSTITUTED BY THE ASSESSEE ON 16 TH OCTOBER, 2009 CAME UP FOR HEARING FOR THE FIRST TIME ON 7 TH DECEMBER, 2009, ON WHICH DATE, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. T HEREAFTER, ON THREE OCCASIONS, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND ON 19 TH OCTOBER, 2010, ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS MOVED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 4 TH JANUARY, 2011. ON THE SAID DATE ALSO, AN ADJOURNMENT REQUEST WAS MOVED WHICH WAS ALLOWED AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 5 TH JULY, 2011. THEREAFTER, AGAIN THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON TWO OCCASIONS AND ON 23 RD SEPTEMBER, 2011, THERE 2 ITA 1759-KOL-2009 MUJTABA ENTERPRISES ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 WAS NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 7 TH FEBRUARY, 2012, A REQUEST WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE SEEKING TIME, WH ICH WAS ALLOWED. HOWEVER, ON 5 TH JUNE, 2012, ANOTHER REQUEST WAS MADE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. ON THE SAID DATE, ANOTHER OPPORTUNITY WAS ALLOWED TO THE A SSESSEE AND THE DATE FOR HEARING WAS FIXED ON 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 I.E. TODAY. THE SAID DATE HAS BEEN NOTED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANC ES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING THE PRESENT APPEAL FILED BY IT. ACCORDINGLY, WE HAVE NO ALTERNATIVE BUT TO DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON- PROSECUTION. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOW N DICTUM. VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. 4. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE P ROVISIONS 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 TH E HONBLE 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. WE HASTEN TO ADD THAT IF THE ASSESSEE IS SO ADVISED AND MOVES A PETITION AS PER RULES PRAYING FOR A RECALL OF THIS ORDER AND IS ABLE TO SHOW THE REASONS FOR HIS INABILITY TO BE PRESENT OR BE REPRESENTED ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IF THE BENCH IS SO CONVINCED HEARING THE PETITION, THE ORDER MAY BE RECALLED AND THE APPEAL MAY BE FIXED FOR HEARING ON A SUBSEQUENT DATE IF SO DEEMED FIT ON FACTS AND LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 I.E., ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN PRESENCE OF THE SR .D.R. SD/- SD/- (C.D.RAO) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ) )) ) DATED : 8 TH NOVEMBER, 2012 3 ITA 1759-KOL-2009 MUJTABA ENTERPRISES ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 ' # $#%- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. / M/S. MUJTABA ENTERPRISES, 39B, DILKUSHA STREET, KOLKATA 700 017 2 / ITO, WARD-32(3), KOLKATA 3. ' ( )/ THE CIT(A), KOLKATA 4. ' / CIT, KOLKATA 5. ( ) / DR, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA # / TRUE COPY, * / BY ORDER, + , /ASSTT. REGISTRAR . -. /, 0 TALUKDAR/SR.P.S.