IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                DELHI BENCH `E', NEW DELHI
         Before Smt. Diva Singh, JM And Sh. N. K. Saini, AM
             ITA No. 3803/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2002-03
             ITA No. 3804/Del/2011 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04
M/s Naresh Chand Jain HUF,       Vs Income Tax Officer,
C-9/25, Sector-8, Rohini,           Ward 30(2)
New Delhi                           New Delhi
(APPELLANT)                         (RESPONDENT)
PAN No. AABFN4078Q
           Assessee by : None
           Revenue by : Sh. P. Dam Kanunjha, Sr. DR
Date of Hearing : 27.05.2015    Date of Pronouncement : 27.05.2015

                               ORDER
Per N. K. Saini, AM:

     These appeals by the assessee are directed against the
order dated 10.06.2011 of ld. CIT(A)-XXV, New Delhi.

2.   During the course of hearing nobody was present on
behalf of the assessee. The notice of hearing issued on
30.04.2015 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. From the record it is
found that on different occasions also, the matter was
adjourned at the request of the assessee. It, therefore, appears
that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter.
                                     2              ITA Nos.3803 & 3804/Del/2011
                                                        Naresh Chand Jain HUF




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 Nos.3803 & 3804/Del/2011
                                                           Naresh Chand Jain HUF

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

8.       In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 27/05/2015)



         Sd/-                                           Sd/-
   (Diva Singh)                                    (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 27/05/2015
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR