ITA No. 2618/Del/2012
Asstt.Year: 2007-08


            IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                   DELHI BENCH `A' NEW DELHI


        BEFORE SHRI N.K. SANINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                             AND
        SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER


                         I.T.A.No.2618/Del/2013
                        Assessment Year : 2007-08

Bonafide Exports,                    vs     Income Tax Officer,
C/o Chaudhary Pradip & Co.,                 Ward-24(1),
100/1, Guatam Nagar,                        New Delhi.
New Delhi.
 (PAN: AAIFB5024H)
 (Appellant)                         (Respondent)
                                    Appellant by: None
                               Respondent by : Ms Y. Kakkar, DR


                               ORDER


PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

      The above appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of

CIT(A)-XI, New Delhi dated 30.3.2012 pertaining to AY 2007-08.


2.    This appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.12.2012, 16.5.2013 but on the

fixed dates, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Today on 25.2.2015, no









                                     1
ITA No. 2618/Del/2012
Asstt.Year: 2007-08


one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment

was placed before the Bench.


3.    It appears that the assessee is not interested in getting the appeal

prosecuted.      Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of

Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), while dismissing the

reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, made the following

observations:-

                     "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.    ITAT Delhi Bench `D' in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India (P)

Ltd. 38 ITD 320 observed that the provisions of Rule 19 state that mere

issue of notice could not by itself mean that the appeal had been admitted.

This rule only clarifies the position. There might be various reasons with the

appellant to remain absent at the time of hearing. One of the reasons might

also be a desire or absence of need to prosecute the appeal or liability to

assist the Tribunal in a proper manner or to take benefit of vagaries of law.

5.    Respectfully following the precedents, the appeal filed by the assessee

is treated as un-admitted and dismissed in limine. We may like to clarify

                                       2
ITA No. 2618/Del/2012
Asstt.Year: 2007-08







that subsequently, if the assessee explains the reasons for non-appearance

and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose of

adjudication of the appeal.

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

prosecution.

           Order pronounced in the open court on 26.2.2015.

          Sd/-                                          Sd/-

(N.K. SAINI)                                     (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER


DT. 26th FEBRUARY, 2015
`GS'


Copy forwarded to:-



     1.    Appellant
     2.    Respondent
     3.    C.I.T.(A)
     4.    C.I.T.
     5.    DR
                                                      By Order



                                                      Asstt.Registrar




                                         3