IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.107(LUC.)/2010 A.Y. : 2002-03 SHRI UDAI VEER SINGH, VS. THE I.T.O., 322, CIVIL LINES, SITAPUR. SITAPUR. PAN AOTPS2443C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P.K.BAJAJ, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER H.L.KARWA, VICE PRESIDENT THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A), BAREILLY DATED 7.12.2009 RELATING TO ASSESS MENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 4.4.2 011. AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF APPEAL, NOBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF TH E ASSESSEE. THE NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY R.P.A.D. NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED BACK UNSERVED. IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE NOTICE HAS B EEN SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATIO N SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ETC NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUBVENIUNT . CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN VIEW THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF 2 THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED I N 38 ITD 320(DEL.) IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., WE TREAT TH E APPEAL AS UNADMITED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 4.4.2011 . SD. SD. (N.K.SAINI) (H.L.KARWA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT APRIL 4TH ,2011. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.