IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI

     BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                        ITA No.1963/Del/2015
                       Assessment Year : 2008-09

Anil Kumar,                       Vs.           ITO,
WZ-A-76, Gulab Bagh,                            Ward-26(3),
Uttam Nagar,                                    New Delhi.
New Delhi.

PAN : AEGPK3605R


     (Appellant)                            (Respondent)

           Appellant by : None
           Respondent by: Shri R.S. Negi, Sr.DR

           Date of Hearing      : 24.08.2015
           Date of Pronouncement: 24.08.2015

                                 ORDER


     This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the

CIT(A) on 22.01.2015 in relation to Assessment Year 2008-09.



2.   When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared

on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment

application also. The notice of hearing sent to the assessee has not been
                                                              ITA No.1963/Del/2015   2







returned unserved. Earlier, on 23.7.2015 also, when the matter was posted

for hearing, none had appeared for the assessee and the matter was

adjourned to 24.8.2015 under notice of hearing. In these circumstances, it

appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. The

appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-

prosecution. My above view finds support from the following decisions:-

    1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their
       Lordships have held:
           "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but
           effectively pursuing it."

    2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.),
       wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the
       assessee   in   default,   their   Lordships   made   the    following
       observation:-
           "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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference."

    3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD
       320 (Del.),wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the
       Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody
       represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for
       adjournment was received.          There was no communication or
       information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that
                                                                 ITA No.1963/Del/2015   3







          date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the
          appeal filed by the revenue as unadmitted in view of the provision
          of Rule 19 of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.


3.        In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-

prosecution.

          The decision was pronounced in the open court on 24th August,

          2015.

                                                          Sd/-

                                                    (R.S. SYAL)
     J                                         ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated:24th August, 2015.

dk

Copy forwarded to

1.       Appellant
2.       Respondent
3.       CIT
4.       CIT(A)
5.       DR
                                              Dy. Registrar, ITAT, New Delhi