IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
               DELHI BENCH "B" NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           AND
         MS. SUCHITRA KAMBLE: JUDICIAL MEMBER

                         ITA no. 4870/Del/2015
                         Asstt. Yrs: 2011-12
Surinder Kumar Gupta,                 Vs. DCIT Central Circle-2,
45/6b, Mall Road, Delhi.                    New Delhi.
PAN: AAEHS 7458 G
( Appellant )                               (Respondent)
      Appellant by       :      None
      Respondent by :           Shri Amrit Lal

                   Date of hearing    :      11/12/2015.
                   Date of order      :      12/01/2016.

                         ORDER

PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M..:

      This appeal, by the assessee , has been preferred against the order dated 10-
06-2015, passed by the CIT(A)-I, New Delhi, in appeal no. 319/14-15, relating to
A.Y. 2011-12.






2.    At the time of hearing none put in appearance on behalf of the assessee
despite personal knowledge of the date of hearing as is apparent from the order
sheet dated 09.11.2015, when the hearing was adjourned at the request of
assessee's counsel to 11.12.2015 and both the parties were intimated of the date
fixed in the open court. This time the assessee has not cared even to apply for
adjournment. It gives an impression that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the
present appeal filed. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the
provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were
                                          2


considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the
assessee's appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution.
3.    The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late
Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under:

      "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, the
      court is not bound to answer the reference. "

4.     Similarly, Hon'ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan
Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the
assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee.






5. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.
Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does
not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same.

6.    Respectfully following the View taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss
the appeal for non-prosecution.

Order pronounced in open court on 14.01.2016.


      Sd/-                                          Sd/-
( SUCHITRA KAMBLE )                           (S.V. MEHROTRA)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 14/01/2016.
*MP*
Copy of order to:
   1. Assessee
   2. AO
   3. CIT
   4. CIT(A)
   5. DR, ITAT, New Delhi.