An appeal was preferred by the assessee. The Tribunal observed that a notice of hearing was sent to the assessee at the address mentioned in Form No. 36/CIT(A)’s order which has not yet been returned back by the Postal Authority. Therefore, it appears that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the matter. 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’. The appeal was treated as unadmitted. Tribunal gave liberty to the assessee to move application as per proviso to rule 24 of the ITAT Rules 1963. (AY. 2012-13)
Jai International v. Dy. CIT (2019) 177 DTR 236 /199 TTJ 676 (Jodpur)(Trib.)
S. 254(1) : Appellate Tribunal–Powers-Non appeared for the assessee/appellant–Notice sent–Appeal not admitted-Liberty to the assessee to move application as per proviso to rule 24. [S. 253, ITATR. 19(2), 24]