IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
              CHANDIGARH BENCHES `A' CHANDIGARH


         BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE, VICE PRESIDENT
           AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER


                            ITA No. 341/Chd/2012
                           Assessment Year: 2006-07

Shri Gurdeep Singh,            Vs           The ITO, Ward-III(2),
Sahnewal,                                   Ludhiana
Ludhiana

PAN No. AZEPS3987K


(Appellant)                                       (Respondent)

                  Appellant By              : None
                  Respondent By             : Shri N.K. Saini

                  Date of hearing       : 05.07.2012
                  Date of Pronouncement : 06.07.2012







                                    ORDER


PER H.L.KARWA, VP


      This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of

CIT(A)-II, Ludhiana dated 12.01.2012 in confirming the penalty of Rs .

25,000/- levied u/s 271A of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') for

the assessment year 2006-07.



2.    The above appeal was fixed for hearing on 05.07.2012.         No body

appeared on behalf of the assessee.     Notice of hearing was sent to the

assessee by RAPD on 17.5.2012.      The above notice has not been received
                                        2


back un-served. Thus, it is presumed that the notice of hearing has been

served on the assessee. The assessee has also not submitted any application

seeking adjournment of hearing. In view of the above, we presume that the

assessee is not interested to pursue the matter. The laws aid those who are

vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights. The principle is embodied as

well known dictum, `VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA

SUBVENIUNT'. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of

Rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in 38 ITD 320

(Del) in the case of CIT v Multiplan India Ltd., we treat this appeal as

unadmitted.



3.    Similar view has been taken by Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of

Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v CWAT 223 ITR 480 wherein it has been

held as under:-


              "If the party, at whose instance the refer ence 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."


4.    Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the cas e 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.








5.    Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v B.N.
Bhattarchargee And Another 118 ITR 461 at page 477-78 held that the appeal
does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing
the same.
                                       3


6.    So by res pectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra),

we dismiss this appeal filed by the assess ee for non prosecution.



7.    In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.



      Order Pronounced in the Open Court on this 6 t h day of July, 2012



      Sd/-                                               Sd/-
   (T. R. SOOD)                                       (H.L.KARWA)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                   VI CE PRESIDENT
Dated : 6 t h July, 2012
Rkk
Copy to:
  1.       The Appellant
  2.       The Respondent
  3.       The CIT
  4.       The CIT(A)
  5.       The DR
                          True Copy
                                                   By Order

                                               Assistant Registrar