1                    ITA NO.2315/DEL/2013
                                                          ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10

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

         BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT
                            AND
        SHRI CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER

                        ITA NO. 2315/DEL/2013
                       Assessment Year : 2009-10

Cityneon Dag India Pvt. Ltd.,       vs       Income Tax Officer,
2/7, Julena Commercial Complex,              Ward 3(3),
Okhla Road, New Delhi.110025                  New Delhi.
(PAN: AAACC4016F)
 (Appellant)                                 (Respondent)
                          Appellant by: None
                       Respondent by : Mrs. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

                                  ORDER

PER CHANDRAMOHAN GARG, JM

      The above appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order

of CIT(A)-VI, New Delhi dated 1.2.2013 pertaining to AY 2009-2010.

2.    This appeal was initially fixed for hearing on 25.03.2014 but on the

fixed date, hearing was adjourned to 14.08.2014 at the request of assessee's

counsel and both parties were informed. Today on 14.8.2014, no one was

present on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment was placed

before the Bench. Mrs. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR appeared on behalf of the

Revenue at the time of hearing.
                                       2                    ITA NO.2315/DEL/2013
                                                            ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10






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.
                                        3                    ITA NO.2315/DEL/2013
                                                             ASSTT. YEAR: 2009-10






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

prosecution.

          Order pronounced in the open court on 19.8.2014.

   Sd/-                                           Sd/-
(G.D. AGRAWAL)                               (CHANDRAMOHAN GARG)
VICE PRESIDENT                                  JUDICIAL MEMBER

DT. 19th AUGUST 2014
`GS'

Copy forwarded to:-

     1.   Appellant
     2.   Respondent
     3.   C.I.T.(A)
     4.   C.I.T.
     5.   DR
                                                     By Order


                                                     Asstt.Registrar