IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                 DELHI BENCH `A', NEW DELHI
          Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. C. M. Garg, JM
              ITA No. 1760/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09
M/s Brushman (India) Ltd.,          Vs ACIT (OSD), CIT-I,
B-95/3, Naraina Industrial Area,       New Delhi
Phase-I, New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                             (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AAACB0378D
            Assessee by : None
            Revenue by : Y. Kakkar, DR
Date of Hearing : 23.02.2015       Date of Pronouncement : 23.02.2015

                                   ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:

      This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
12.01.2012 of ld. CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi.

2.    During the course of hearing nobody was present on
behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing issued on
20.10.2014 was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned
in the impugned order and the assessment order which had not
been returned by the postal authority. The Registry has also
pointed out that this appeal is barred by limitation by 66 days.
It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested to
prosecute the matter.






                                     2                    ITA No. 1760/Del/2012
                                                           Brushman (India) Ltd.

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
the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but
effectively pursuing the same.
                                        3                    ITA No. 1760/Del/2012
                                                              Brushman (India) Ltd.

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

8.       In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 23/02/2015)




       Sd/-                                             Sd/-
  (C. M Garg)                                      (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 23/02/2015
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR