IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                   (DELHI BENCH `E' NEW DELHI)

             BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                AND
              SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                       I.T.A. No.5845/Del/2012
                      Assessment year : 2009-10

            Nakshtra Promoters Developers,           ITO,
            E-102, Ist Floor, GK Enclave-I,          Ward-1 (4),
            New Delhi.                         V.    New Delhi.

                (Appellant)                    (Respondent)

                          /GIR/No.AAGFN-
                                  AAGFN-1022-
                      PAN /GIR/No.AAGFN 1022-M

                  Appellant by : None
                  Respondent by : Shri Keyur Patel, Sr. DR.

                                    ORDER

PER TS KAPOOR, AM:

      This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld
CIT(A) 17.9.2012. The appeal was initially listed for hearing on
17.1.2013. However, on 17.1.2013 Bench did not function and finally
on 8.10.2013 the revenue took the adjournment and hearing was fixed
for today i.e. 6th March, 2014 and both parties were informed
accordingly. However, at the time of hearing nobody was present on
behalf of the assessee. It appears that the assessee is not interested
in prosecuting the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee is
liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In our above view, we find
support from the following decisions:-







      1. In the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR
      461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have
                                     2               ITA No5845/Del/2012


      held that "The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but
      effectively of pursuing it."


      2. In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker v. CWT 223 IR
      480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of
      assessee in default made following observations in their order:
      "if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to
      appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of
      the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this
      court is not bound to answer the reference.
      3. In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.)
      The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was
      fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented
      the revenue/applicant, nor any communication for adjournment
      was received. There was no communication or information as to
      why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal
      on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the
      revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate
      Tribunal Rules, 1963.


Therefore, keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the assessee
is dismissed.







2.    Order pronounced in the open court on 6th day of March, 2014.


     Sd/-                                               Sd/-
 (U.B.S. BEDI)                                  (T.S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dt.06.03.2014.
HMS
                                 3             ITA No5845/Del/2012


Copy forwarded to:-
   1. The appellant
   2. The respondent
   3. The CIT
   4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
   5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
True copy.
                                                   By Order


                                                  (ITAT, New Delhi).


Date of hearing                                   6.3.2014

Date of Dictation                                 6.3.2014

Date of Typing                                    6.3.2014

Date of order signed by                           6.3.2014
both the Members &
pronouncement.

Date of order uploaded on net
& sent to the Bench concerned.