IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH `I-1', NEW DELHI
     Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Sh. C. M. Garg, JM
             ITA No. 4387/Del/2010 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07
M/s Dentsply India (P) Ltd.      Vs     Income Tax Officer,
Plot No. 358, FIES, Patparganj          Ward-10(1),
Industrial Area,                        New Delhi
Delhi-110092
(APPELLANT)                             (RESPONDENT)
PAN No.AAACD3171E
                 Assessee by : None
                 Revenue by : Ms. Y. Kakkar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 15.07.2015          Date of Pronouncement : 16.07.2015

                                 ORDER
PER N.K. SAINI, A.M.

     This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
27.08.2010 passed by the ITO, Ward 10(1), New Delhi, on
the direction of the DRP-I, New Delhi vide order dated
03.06.2010 u/s 144C of the Income Tax Act, 1961
(hereinafter referred to as the Act).

2.   At the time of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the
assessee neither any adjournment was sought. Earlier, this case was
fixed time to time and adjourned on the request of the Authorized
Representative, namely, Deloitte Haskins & Sells. Last time this case
was fixed for hearing on 08.05.2014 and the ld. Counsel for the
assessee sought adjournment, the case was adjourned sine die.
                                   2                   ITA No.4387 /Del/2010
                                                       Dentsply India (P) Ltd.






However, a fresh notice of hearing on today i.e. 15.07.2015, was
issued to the assessee on 28.04.2015 which has not been returned by
the Postal Authority, so it is presumed that the assessee has been
served. It, therefore 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
                                   3                   ITA No.4387 /Del/2010
                                                       Dentsply India (P) Ltd.

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.

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






8.      However, the assessee may request for recalling of the
order as provided under Rule 24 of the Income Tax Rules
(Tribunal), 1963.

9.      In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed.
(Order Pronounced in the Court on 16/07/2015).

             Sd/-                                   Sd/-
  (C. M. Garg)                                  (N. K. Saini)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 16/07/2015
*Subodh*
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                              ASSISTANT REGISTRAR