IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV AND SHRI D. KARUNAKARA RAO ITA NO.846/PN/10 (A.Y 2004-05) SUSONS HOTELS PRIVATE LIMITED 1198, F.C. ROAD, SHIVAJINAGAR PUNE-411005 PAN NO. AABCS5003K .... APPELLANT VS. THE ITO, WARD 6(2), PUNE . RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER D KARUNAKARA RAO AM THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE EM ANATES FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-III, PUNE, DATED 25/02/2010 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18-10-2010, HOWE VER, ON THIS DATE OF HEARING NO ONE APPEARED FROM THE SIDE OF THE APPELLANT THOUGH IT WAS PROPERLY COMMUNICATED. FROM THE ORDER SHEET IT IS EVIDENT THAT IN THE PAST, NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES WAS GRANTED, BUT THIS APPEAL ALWAYS REM AINED UNATTENDED. IT IS QUITE AN UNFORTUNATE SITUATION THAT IN THE EXPECTATION OF THIS APPEAL BE REPRESENTED PROPERLY, THE REGISTRY KEPT ON SENDING NOTICES BUT ALWA YS REMAINED UNATTENDED. THE LAW ASSISTS THOSE WHO ARE VIGILANT AND NOT THOSE WHO SLEEP OVER THEIR RIGHTS. THIS PRINCIPLE IS EMBODIED IN THE WELL KNOWN DICTUM, VIG ILANTIBUS, NO DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT. IN SUCH CASES, THE COURTS/TRIBUNA L HAVE INHERENT POWERS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. ON THE FACTS OF THE CASE, W E ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THE APPE AL. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. ITA NO. 846/PN/10 A.Y 2004-05 PAGE 2 OF 2 3. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 28 TH OCTOBER, 2010. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRAKUMAR YADAV) (D.KARUNAKAR A RAO) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R PUNE DATED THE 28 TH OCTOBER, 2010 R COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. ITO, WARD 6(2), PUNE 3. CIT(A)-III, PUNE 4. CIT-III, PUNE 5. D.R. ITAT A BENCH BY ORDER ASSTT. REGISTRAR I.T.A.T PUNE