IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH `SMC', NEW DELHI
       BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                          ITA No. 6858/Del/2014
                           Asstt. Year : 2005-06
Sunny Arora,                      Vs Income Tax Officer,
A-3/173, Paschim Vihar,              Ward 25(4),
New Delhi.                           New Delhi

PAN No. AFKPA1341R

     (APPELLANT)                        (RESPONDENT)

                 Assessee by : None
                 Revenue by : Shri Sarbhjit Kumar, Sr. DR

Date of Hearing : 14.09.2015   Date of Pronouncement : 14 .09.2015


                                ORDER


     This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated
26.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XXIV, New Delhi.

2.   During the course of hearing, nobody was present on
behalf of the assessee. Earlier also, when the case was fixed
for hearing on 14.8.2015, nobody was present and it was
directed that the notice of hearing be sent to the assessee
through registered post, which was issued on 18.8.2015 at the
address mentioned by the assessee in Form No.36/impugned
                                       2                        ITA No.6858/Del/2014
                                                                         Sunny Arora






order of the CIT(A) as well as in the assessment order.
However,         neither      the    assessee        nor      his    authorized
representative was present and even no adjournment was
sought.      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.6858/Del/2014
                                                                       Sunny Arora

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.       In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
 (Order Pronounced in the Court on 14/09/2015)


                                                                 Sd/-
                                                         (N. K. Saini)
                                                      Accountant Member
Dated: 14 /09/2015
dk
Copy forwarded to:
1. Appellant
2. Respondent
3. CIT
4. CIT(Appeals)
5.DR: ITAT
                                                      ASSISTANT REGISTRAR