ITA No.2525/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2002-03

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


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

                           I.T.A.No.2525/Del/2013
                              Asstt.Year: 2002-03

Chahat Paper Mills Pvt. Ltd.,      vs       Income Tax Officer,
216, Gali Loharan,                          Ward 3(3),
Ajmeri Gate,                                New Delhi.
Delhi-06
(PAN: AACCC5296H)
 (Appellant)                                (Respondent)

                                     Appellant by: None
                         Respondent by : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr. DR
                               Date of Hearing: 11.5.2015
                         Date of pronouncement: 17.6.2015

                                ORDER


PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

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

CIT(A)-VIII, New Delhi dated 27.02.2013.


2.     This appeal was initially fixed for hearing on 29.10.2013 and since then

adjournments have been sought by the counsel for the assessee.       Thereafter,

the appeal was fixed for hearing on 11.5.2015 and both parties were informed.

Today on 11.5.2015, no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any








                                        1
ITA No.2525/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2002-03

request for adjournment was placed before the Bench. Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Sr.

DR appeared on behalf of the Revenue at the time of hearing.


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 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.

                                         2
ITA No.2525/Del/2013
Asstt.Year: 2002-03

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

prosecution.

          Order pronounced in the open court on 17.06.2015.

          Sd/-                                        Sd/-

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

DT. 17th JUNE 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