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

     BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                          ITA No.777/Del/2014
                        Assessment Year : 2007-08

Ajay Goel,                         Vs.          ITO,
C-54, Vivek Vihar,                              Ward-35(1),
New Delhi.                                      New Delhi.

PAN : AADPG3182A


     (Appellant)                             (Respondent)

           Appellant by : None
           Respondent by: Shri Om Prakash Meena, Sr.DR

                                  ORDER


     This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the

CIT(A) on 22.11.2013 in relation to Assessment Year 2007-08.



2.   When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared

on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any adjournment

application also. Earlier, on 22.6.2015, when the matter was first posted for

hearing, the matter was adjourned to 28.07.2015 and a fresh notice of

hearing was sent to the assessee. In these circumstances, it appears that the
                                                              ITA No.777/Del/2014   2







assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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 Tribunal Rules, 1963.
                                                             ITA No.777/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 28th July, 2015.


                                                        Sd/-
                                                  (R.S. SYAL)
                                             ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 28th July, 2015.

dk

Copy forwarded to

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