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. 712/PN/2009 : A.Y. 2003-04 SHRI DNYANDEO SITARAM KALE (HUF) C/O. M/S. V.S. KALE & CO. A/P VIZORI, TAL. MALSHIRAS DIST. SOLAPUR PAN AAFHD 9507 C APPELLANT VS. ASSTT. CIT CIR. 1, SOLAPUR RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-III PUNE DATED 26- 3-2009 FOR A.Y. 2003-04. 2. THIS CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 30-8-2010 FOR WHICH A NOTICE WAS SENT BY RPAD ON 29-7-2010. THE S AID NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED BACK FROM THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES. SO, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE H AS RECEIVED THE SAME. HOWEVER, WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D UP FOR HEARING ON 30-8-2010, NONE WAS PRESENT. NO APPLICATION REQUESTING FOR ANY ADJOURNMENT IS ALSO RECEIVED. IT IS, THUS, CLEAR THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE ITA NO. 712/PN/09 SHRI DNYANDEO SITARAM KALE HUF A.Y. 2003-04 , 2 WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL-KNO WN DICTUM, VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUVENIUNT. CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND KEEPING IN MI ND THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19(2) OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES, AS WERE CONSIDERED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL) IN TH E 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 30 TH AUGUST 2010. SD/- SD/- (D. KARUNAKARA RAO) (SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE,DATED THE 30 TH AUGUST 2010 ANKAM COPY FORWARDED TO: (1) ASSESSEE (2) DEPARTMENT (3) CIT- III PUNE (4) CIT(A)-IV PUNE (5) THE D.R. A' BENCH, PUNE TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, PUNE BENCHES, PUNE