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

BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY,JM

             ITA Nos.2551 to 2554/Del/2012
     Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07 to 2008-09

Western India Shipyard      Vs. ITO,
Ltd.,                           Ward-18(3),
Prabhakar Murmugao              New Delhi.
Harbour Vasco,
Goa.

PAN : AAACW0117B


      (Appellant)                       (Respondent)

           Appellant by :      None
           Respondent by:      Shri Sameer Sharma, Sr.DR

                         ORDER

PER BENCH:

      These appeals by the assessee are directed against
the orders passed by the CIT(A) on 28.3.2012, 26.3.2012,
28.3.2012 and 30.3.2012 in relation to the assessment
years 2004-05 & 2006-07 to 2008-09, respectively.







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. The notice
of hearing sent to the assessee has not been returned
                                          ITA Nos.2551 to 2554/Del/2012




unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that the
assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals. The
appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore, liable to be
dismissed, for non-prosecution.     Our above view finds
support from the following decisions:-
    1. In `CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr.', 118 ITR 461,
      their Lordships have held:
          "The appeal does not mean merely filing of the
          appeal but effectively pursuing it."

    2. In `Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT', 223 ITR
      480 (M.P.) 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. In `Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India
      (P.) Ltd', 38 ITD 320 (Del.), 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


                             2
                                         ITA Nos.2551 to 2554/Del/2012




        view of the provision of Rule 19 of the Appellate
        Rules, 1963.







3.      In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are
dismissed for non-prosecution.


       The decision was pronounced in the open court on
23rd July, 2014.

             Sd/-                            Sd/-
       (A.T. VARKEY)                    (R.S. SYAL)
     JUDICIAL MEMBER                ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 23rd July, 2014.

dk

Copy forwarded to

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




                             3