IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH (A), KOLKATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER] I.T.A. NO. 685/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2012-13 ALLBRIGHT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD.....................................................APPELLANT P-7, PRINCEP STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA 700 072. [PAN: AADCA 9436 E] ITO, WARD 1(4), KOLKATA........................RESPONDENT P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, KOLKATA 700 069. APPEARANCES BY: NONE APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. SHRI P.K. SRIHARI, CIT APPEARING ON BEHALF OF THE REVENUE. DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : DECEMBER 06 2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : DECEMBER 06 2018 ORDER PER P.M. JAGTAP, AM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) 9, KOLKATA DATED 21.03.2017. 2. IN THIS CASE, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE WAS INITIALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 11.07.2018. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATE AND ACCORDINGLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.08.2018. ON 28.08.2018, THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE HEARING, THEREFORE WAS ADJOURNED TO 10.10.2018, NOTICE OF WHICH WAS GIVEN TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH NOTICE BOARD. ON 10.10.2018, NONE HOWEVER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN ORDER TO GIVE ONE MORE OPPORTUNITY TO THE ASSESSEE, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.12.2018 WITH THE DIRECTION TO THE REGISTRY TO SEND THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING BY RPAD AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN THE APPEAL MEMO. ON 2 I.T.A. NO. 685/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 202-13 ALLBRIGHT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. 06.12.2018 THAT IS TODAY, NONE HOWEVER HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. EVEN THE NOTICE OF THE SAID HEARING SEND TO THE ASSESSEE BY RPAD HAS COME BACK UNDELIVERED FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMARK REFUSED. IT APPEARS FROM THIS CONDUCT OF THE ASSESSEE COMPANY THAT IT IS NOT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIENT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS 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 THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HALKAR VS C.W.T. REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480, WE TREAT THIS APPEAL AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH DECEMBER, 2018. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT DATED: 06/12/2018 BISWAJIT, SR. PS 3 I.T.A. NO. 685/KOL/2017 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 202-13 ALLBRIGHT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD. COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. ALLBRIGHT ELECTRICALS PVT. LTD., P-27, PRINCEP STREET, 3 RD FLOOR, KOLKATA 700 072. 2. ITO, WD-1(4), P-7, CHOWRINGHEE SQUARE, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, KOLKATA 700 069. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. DR TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR / H.O.O. ITAT, KOLKATA