IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE SHRI P.K. BANSAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.481/AGRA/2009 AGRA ARCHITECT ASSOCIATION, VS. THE COMMISSIONER OF 19, LATA KUNJ, AJMER ROAD, INCOME-TAX-I, AGRA. BALUGANJ, AGRA. (PAN : AABAA 0905 G) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR APPELLANT : NONE FOR RESPONDENT : SHRI VINOD KUMAR, JR. D.R. ORDER PER P.K. BANSAL, A.M. : THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED CIT-I, AGRA DATED 30.10.2009 PASSED U/S. 12AA OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT. 2. NONE IS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE THOUGH THE NOTICE FOR HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH REGISTERED POST. NO ADJOURNMENT AP PLICATION HAS COME ON RECORD ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRESENT CASE, WE ARE, THEREFORE, OF THE CONSIDERED OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERES TED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTER IN DISPUTE. THE LAW ASSISTS ONLY THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT OF THEIR RIGHTS , AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEM. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM VIG ILANTIBUS NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES, KEEPING IN MIND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963, A S WELL AS THE DECISIONS BY THE TRIBUNAL, AS IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED, 38 ITD 320 (DELHI) AND BY THE HIGHER COURTS, AS IN 2 THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT , 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE TREAT THE ASSESSEES APPEAL AS UN-ADMITTED, AND DISMISS THE SAME IN LIMI NE. 3. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 11.04.2011. SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (P.K. BANSAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 11 TH APRIL, 2011 *AKS/- COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) BY ORDER 4. CIT, CONCERNED 5. DR, ITAT, AGRA 6. GUARD FILE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR TRUE COPY