IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO, AM I.T.A. NO. 1384/PN/2007: A.Y. 2004-05 AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS LTD. P.NO. B-7 MIDC VILLAGE MAHALUNGE TAL. KHED, DIST. PUNE-410 501 PAN AACCA 2867 L APPELLANT VS. DY. CIT CIR. 8, PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI A.S. SINGH ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGA INST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-III PUNE DATED 30-8-2007 FOR A.Y. 2004-05. 2. THIS CASE WAS ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 9- 2-2009 AND THEREAFTER, IT WAS ADJOURNED ON A NUMBER OF OCCASIO NS ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. FINALLY THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 6- 10-2010. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR H EARING ON 6- 10-2010, NONE WAS PRESENT. NO APPLICATION REQUESTIN G FOR ANY ADJOURNMENT IS ALSO RECEIVED. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR TH AT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. THE LAW AS SISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIG HTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL-KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS , NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND ITA NO. 1384/PN/07 AURANGABAD ELECTRICALS A.Y. 2004-05 , 2 KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (D EL) IN THE CASE OF CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL STANDS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 8 TH OCTOBER 2010. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE,DATED THE 8 TH OCTOBER 2010 ANKAM COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) DEPARTMENT (3) CIT- IV PUNE (4) CIT(A)-III PUNE (5) THE D.R. A' BENCH, PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE