IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, B - BENCH, LUCKNOW. BEFORE SHRI H.L.KARWA, HON'BLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A.NO.373(LUC.)/2010 A.Y. : 2005-06 HALWASIYA PROPERTIES PVT. LTD. VS. THE DY.CIT, RAN GE-I, HALWASIYA COURT, LUCKNOW LUCKNOW. PAN AAACH9708D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ALOK MITRA, D.R. O R D E R PER N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF THE CIT(A)-I, LUCKNOW DATED 29.3.2010 RELATING TO ASSES SMENT YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE ABOVE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.9. 2010. 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 AND THE A.D. CARD IS ON RECORD. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT FILED ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING. IT SEEMS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PURSUE THE MATTER. IT IS WELL SETTLED LAW THAT LAWS AID THOSE WHO ARE VIGILA NT, NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP UPON THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN WE LL KNOWN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS ET 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 UNADMITTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28.9.201 0. SD. SD. (H.L.KARWA) (N.K.SAINI) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SEPTEMBER 28TH ,2010. COPY TO THE : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) (4) CIT 5.DR. A.R.,ITAT, LUCKNOW. SRIVASTAVA.