IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SA INI, AM ITA NO.795/KOL/2017 (A.Y: 2012-13) MOHAN INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. ROOM NO.2B, 56, METCALF STREET KOLKATA-700012. VS. I.T.O., WARD-15(2) AAYAKAR BHAWAN POORVA 110, SHANTIPALLY, KOLKATA-700107. ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AAGCM 8611 E ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADDL. CIT, SR. DR / DATE OF HEARING : 24/07/2018 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 24/07/2018 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THE CAPTIONED APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAIN ING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2012-13, IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY IN COME TAX OFFICER, WARD-15(2), KOLKATA DATED 26.03.2015. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WAS SENT T O THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN FORM NO.36. THE SAID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED. THIS APPEAL WAS LISTED FOR HEARING BEFORE THE TRIBU NAL ON 24.07.2018. TODAY I.E. ON 24.07.2018 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS MA DE. IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. HENCE TH E APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THI S VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- (1). IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND A NOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LO RDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. MOHAN INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.795/KOL/2017 A.Y: 2012-13 2 (2). IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INS TANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION O F THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT B OUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. (3). IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BE FORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING N OBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURN MENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BAS IS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMIT TED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES, 1963. 3. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT T HOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS; I.E. VIGILANTIBUS NON DORMIENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. 4. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE T O MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON -COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24/07/20 18. SD/- (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) SD/- (DR. A. L. SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA; DATED: 24/07/2018 RG, SPS MOHAN INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. ITA NO.795/KOL/2017 A.Y: 2012-13 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. / THE APPELLANT- MOHAN INFRAPROJECTS PVT. LTD. 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- ITO WARD 15(2), KOLKATA 3. ( ) / THE CIT(A)-5, KOLKATA. 4. / CIT-, KOLKATA. 5. ! $$% , % , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. ( / GUARD FILE. //TRUE COPY// BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRETARY, HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O, I.T.A.T, KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA .