IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
              DELHI BENCH `SMC-II', NEW DELHI
                    Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM
           ITA No. 4734/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06
           ITA No. 4735/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06
M/s India Petroleum             Vs DCIT, Central Circle-07
        st
C-140, 1 Floor, Defense Colony,    (erstwhile DCIT CC-12),
New Delhi-110024                    New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                        (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAAFI9089H
                 Assessee by : None
                 Revenue by : Sh. T. Vasantan, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 01.10.2015     Date of Pronouncement : 01.10.2015

                                ORDER
     These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the
separate orders each dated 16.03.2015 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIV,
New Delhi.






2.   These appeals are barred by limitation by 56 days. The
Power of Attorney filed by the assessee is also defective as the
same is without stamp fee. Earlier these cases were fixed for
hearing on 27.08.2015 and adjourned for today i.e. 01.10.2015
as nobody was present on the said date. Today also when the
cases were called for hearing nobody was present on behalf of
the assessee neither any adjournment was sought. It, therefore,
                                     2             ITA Nos. 4734 & 4735/Del/2015
                                                             India Petroleum

appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the
matter.

3.    The law aids those who are vigilant, not those who sleep upon their
rights.   This   principle   is   embodied    in   well    known       dictum,
"VIGILANTIBUS         ET     NON      DORMIENTIBUS            JURA        SUB
VENIUNT'. Considering the facts 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 this appeal as unadmitted.

4.    Similar view has been taken by the Hon'ble Madhya 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."

5.    Similarly, Hon'ble 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 assistance from the assessee.

6.    Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs.
B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that
                                        3             ITA Nos. 4734 & 4735/Del/2015
                                                                India Petroleum

the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but
effectively pursuing the same.






7.      So by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited
supra, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution.

8.       In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 01/10/2015)


                                                    Sd/-
                                                (N. K. Saini)
                                            ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 01/10/2015
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR