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

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JM

                       ITA No.5418/Del/2014
                     Assessment Year : 2004-05

Smt. Ramo,                        Vs.         ITO,
W/o (Late) Dharam Singh,                      Ward 2(2),
C/o Shri V.K. Goel, Advocates,                Meerut.
282, Boundry Road,
Civil Lines,
Meerut.

PAN : AGZPR8672G


     (Appellant)                           (Respondent)

            Appellant by :       None
            Respondent by:       Shri J.P. Chandraker, Sr.DR

                                 ORDER

PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM:

     This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order

passed by the CIT(A), Meerut on 27.08.2014 in relation to

Assessment Year 2004-05.


2.   This is a case in which early hearing was granted for today, i.e.,

5.5.2015, at the request of the assessee. When the matter was

called up for hearing, no one has appeared on behalf of the

assessee.    Notice of hearing sent to the assessee has not been
                                                        ITA No.5418/Del/2014   2







returned unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the

assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. 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
       Appellate Rules, 1963.
                                                         ITA No.5418/Del/2014   3




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

non-prosecution.

      The decision was pronounced in the open court on 05th May,

      2015.


           Sd/-                                        Sd/-
       (H.S. SIDHU)                              (R.S. SYAL)
     JUDICIAL MEMBER                        ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated:5th May, 2015.

dk


Copy forwarded to

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