IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL B BENCH: KOL KATA [BEFORE SHRI P.M.JAGTAP, A.M. & SHRI S.S.VISWANETHR A RAVI, J.M. ] M.A. NO.154/KOL/2012 : ASSESSMENT YEAR :2005-06 (ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.1298/KOL/2008) SMT. RAKHI HINGER -VS- I.T.O., WARD -3, MALDA APPLICANT (PAN: AAPPH 7878E) RESPONDENT DATE OF CONCLUDING THE HEARING : 17.06.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCING THE ORDER : 17.06.2016 APPEARANCES : FOR THE APPLICANT : NONE : FOR THE RESPONDENT : MD. GHYASUDDIN, JC IT, SR.DR O R D E R PER SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, J.M . : THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION IS FILED BY THE ASS ESSEE TAKING THE GRIEVANCE THAT THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 12.12.2008 SUFFERED FROM MISTAKE APPARENT FROM RECORD AND HENCE APPEAL BE RE-HEARD. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THIS MISCELLANEOUS APP LICATION, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE IN SPITE OF THE FACT THAT NO TICE OF HEARING WAS PASTED ON THE NOTICE-BOARD. SINCE THE TRIBUNAL PASSED THIS ORDER ON 12.12.2008, THE ASSESSEE TOOK ABOUT FOUR YEARS TO FILE M.A. ON 12.11.2012 FOR REC ALLING THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL. THIS M.A. WAS EARLIER FIXED FOR HEARING SEVERAL TIM ES BUT THE ASSESSEE DID NOT TURN UP AT THE TIME OF HEARING TO PURSUE HER APPEAL. IN MOS T OF THE OCCASIONS, THE ASSESSEE SENT ADJOURNMENT PETITIONS FOR ADJOURNING THE APPEA L TO ANOTHER DATE AND THE BENCH WAS PLEASED TO ADJOURN THE MATTER SEVERAL TIMES. TH IS 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 AT ALL INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER. 2 MA NO.154/KOL/2012 SMT. RAKHI HINGER ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 3. THE LAW AIDS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE W HO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, V IGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FA CTS 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 IN DIA LTD., (38 ITD 320)(DEL), WE TREAT THIS MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION AS UNADMITTED . 4. 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 PREPARATI ON OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, 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) RETURNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSI STANCE 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 APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFF ECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. 7. SO BY RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE VIEW TAKEN IN THE CASES CITED SUPRA , WE DISMISS THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION OF THE ASSESS EE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 8. IN THE RESULT, THE MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATION FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 17 TH JUNE, 2016. SD/- SD/- (P.M.JAGTAP) (S.S.VI SWANETHRA RAVI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 17 TH JUNE, 2016 3 MA NO.154/KOL/2012 SMT. RAKHI HINGER ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2005-06 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SMT. RAKHI HINGER, W/O- SRI MANOJ KR. HINGER, P.O. KALIACHAK, DIST- MALDA, PIN- 732 201 2. I.T.O., WARD-3, MALDA 3. CIT(A), MALDA 4. CIT, 5. CIT(DR), ITAT, KOLKATA TRUE COPY, BY ORDER, ASSTT. REGISTRAR , ITAT, KOLKATA TALUKDAR(SR.P.S.)