IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH : B : NEW DELHI

     BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                         AND
         SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                               ITA No.2250/Del/2015
                                Assessment Year: NA

Samarpan Charitable Trust,             Vs.            CIT(E),
C/o M/s Anuj Goyal & Co., CAs,                        5, Ashok Marg,
204, Deep Complex,                                    Lucknow.
Begum Bridge Road,
Meerut.

PAN : AAOTS0768H

      (Appellant)                            (Respondent)

            Appellant by :     None
            Respondent by:     Ms Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

            Date of Hearing      : 18.12.2018
            Date of Pronouncement: 18.12.2018

                                      ORDER

PER R.K. PANDA, AM:

      This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 30th March, 2015

of the CIT(E), Lucknow, passed u/s 80G(5)(vi) of the Income-Tax Act, 1961.


2.   None appeared on behalf of the assessee. It is seen that on earlier occasions the

matter got adjourned three times due to non-appearance on behalf of the assessee/at

the written request of the assessee. Today also, none has appeared on behalf of the
                                                                    ITA No.2250/Del/2015







assessee nor any application for adjournment was filed.         The notice sent to the

assessee has been returned by the Postal Authorities with the remarks "No such Trust

at this address. Returned." The assessee has also not provided any new address where

the notice could be sent. This type of conduct on the part of the assessee shows that it

is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed by it. The appeal filed by the assessee

is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution.     Our 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 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.




                                           2
                                                                   ITA No.2250/Del/2015


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

       The decision was pronounced in the open court on 18.12.2018.

           Sd/-                                                    sd/-

  (KULDIP SINGH)                                        (R.K. PANDA)
 JUDICIAL MEMBER                                    ACCOUNTANT MEMFBER

Dated: 18th December, 2018

dk

Copy forwarded to

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




                                           3