, , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, A, CHANDIGARH , !' # $ % &' , '( BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ./ ITA NOS. 470 TO 473/CHD/2017 / ASSESSMENT YEARS : 2010-11 TO 2012-13 M/S BCL HOMES LTD., VILALGE KISHANPUR, NAC, ZIRAKPUR, MOHALI THE DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, CHANDIGARH ./PAN NO: AADCB4876D / APPELLANT /RESPONDENT ! /ASSESSEE BY : NONE ' ! / REVENUE BY : DR. GULSAN RAJ CIT DR # $ % /DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2018 &'() % / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09. 10. 2018 ')/ ORDER PER BENCH: THE PRESENT APPEALS HAVE BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSE SSEE FOR DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS AGAINST THE SEPARATE ORDERS OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-3, GURGAON [HEREINAFTER REFERR ED TO AS CIT(A)]. DATED 30.12.2016 AND 25.1.2017. 2. NO ONE HAS PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE AT ZIRAKPUR (MOHALI) AS WELL AS AT THE ADDRESS OF THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE PER THE ADDRESS GARG SANJEEV & ASSO CIATES WHO HAD FILED LETTERS ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, NOTICE SENT AT THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED WITH T HE REMARKS OF THE ITA NOS. 470 TO 473/ CHD/2017- M/S BCL HOMES LTD, ZIRAKPUR, MOHALI 2 POSTAL AUTHORITIES THAT THE OFFICE IS LOCKED. A P ERUSAL OF THE RECORD ALSO REVEALS THAT NOTICE WAS EARLIER SENT ON 19.3.2018, WHICH REMAINED UNSERVED AND HAD BEEN RECEIVED BACK. NEITHER THE ASSESSEE HAS GIVEN CORRECT ADDRESS NOR THE COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE HA S COME IN APPEARANCE DESPITE A SEPARATE NOTICE ISSUED TO HIM. IT APPEAR S THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PERUSING ITS APPEAL. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. TH IS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL-KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE F ACTS 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., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT T HESE APPEALS AS UNADMITTED. 3. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADH YA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 4. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 RE TURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 5. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PA GE 477-478) HELD ITA NOS. 470 TO 473/ CHD/2017- M/S BCL HOMES LTD, ZIRAKPUR, MOHALI 3 THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 6. SO, BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA, WE DISMISS THESE APPEALS FOR NON-PROSECUTION . 7. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT SD/- SD/- ( # $ % &' / ANNAPURNA GUPTA) '( / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( / SANJAY GARG) / JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 09.10.2018 .. '+ ,- .- / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / THE RESPONDENT 3. # / / CIT 4. # / ( )/ THE CIT(A) 5. -01 2 , % 2 , 34516 / DR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH 6. 15 7$ / GUARD FILE '+ # / BY ORDER, 8 ' / ASSISTANT REGISTRAR