Cane Development Council,Vill & P.O. Rohankala,Distt. Muzaffarnagar,Uttar Pradesh Vs. JCIT, Range 2,Muzaffarnagar.
July, 04th 2012
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
(DELHI BENCH `B' : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND
SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
(Assessment Year : 2007-08)
Cane Development Council, Vs. JCIT, Range 2,
Vill & P.O. Rohankala, Muzaffarnagar.
Assessee by : None
Revenue by : Shri K.V.K. Singh, Sr.DR
PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M.
This appeal of the assessee emanates from the order of the CIT-(A),
Muzaffarnagar dated 17.01.2012 relevant to assessment year 2007-08.
2. Despite sending notice of hearing sufficiently in advance, assessee did not appear
nor any adjournment request has been received at the time when the case was called up
for hearing. So, it is inferred that the assessee is not interest in prosecution of the present
3. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions
of the Tribunal including in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., reported in 38
ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of
Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 I.T.R. 480 (MP), we treat the appeal of the
assessee as unadmitted and dismiss the same.
2 I.T.A. No.1964/Del./2012
(A.Y. : 2007-08)
4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution.
Order pronounced in open court soon after the conclusion of the hearing on
(SHAMIM YAHYA) (U.B.S. BEDI)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated : JULY 02, 2012
Copy of the order forwarded to:-
4. CIT(A), Muzaffarangar.
5. CIT(ITAT) Deputy Registrar, ITAT