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

             BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                AND
              SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                       I.T.A. No.1141/Del/2013
                      Assessment year : 2009-10

            MS Payal Dayal Mathew,             ITO,
            D-12, Jangpura-B,                  Ward-37 (1),
            New Delhi.                   V.    New Delhi.

                 (Appellant)                   (Respondent)

                           /GIR/No.AIWPM-
                                   AIWPM-3472-
                       PAN /GIR/No.AIWPM 3472-C

                  Appellant by : None.
                  Respondent by : Ms. Meenakshi Vohra, Sr. DR.

                                   ORDER

PER TS KAPOOR, AM:

      The appeal was originally fixed for hearing on 27.8.2013 on
which date an adjournment was granted and thereafter the appeal was
fixed for hearing on 4.2.2014. On the date of hearing, nobody was
present. Therefore, the appeal was passed over. In the second round
also, nobody was present therefore again the appeal was passed over.
In the third round also, there was nobody present on behalf of
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 No1141/Del/2013


        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 4th day of February,
2014.


        Sd/-                                              Sd/-
 (DIVA SINGH)                                     (T.S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dt. 04.02.2014.
HMS
                                    3             ITA No1141/Del/2013








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                                      04.02.2014

Date of Dictation                                    04.02.2014

Date of Typing                                       04.02.2014

Date of order signed by                              04.02.2014
both the Members &
pronouncement.

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