IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
                              MUMBAI BENCH `A' BENCH

               BEFORE SHRI B.R.MITTAL(JUDICIAL MEMBER) AND
                SHRI B.RAMAKOTAIAH (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER)

                                ITA No.1098/Mum/2009
                               Assessment Year: 2004-05

Mr Kamaluddin E Vastani,                     I.T.O 17(1)(2),
C/O. M/s. Intex,                             Mumbai
54/56, Champshi Bhimji Road,
2nd floor, Mazgaon,                    Vs.
Mumbai-400 010
PA No.AAAPV 9503 F

(Appellant)                                  (Respondent)


                             Appellant by : None
                             Respondent by: Shri T.D.Singh

Date of hearing:               22.8.2012
Date of pronouncement:          31.8.2012






                                     ORDER

Per B.R.Mittal, JM:

       The assessee has filed this appeal for assessment year 2004-05 against order
dated 10.11.2008 of ld CIT(A)-XVII, Mumbai.


2.     Earlier the appeal was fixed on 15.5.2012 and the same was adjourned to
22.8.2012 in the presence of representatives of parties.


3.     On the date fixed for hearing i.e. on 22.8.2012, none appeared on behalf of
assessee. Nor there is any application for adjournment. It appears that the assessee is
not interested in prosecuting his appeal before the Tribunal. In this regard, we are
supported by the decision of Hon'ble Calcutta High Court in the case of CIT vs.
B.N.Bhattarchargee and another, 118 ITR 460, wherein, Their Lordships have held that
"the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it" . We
                                            2                           ITA No.1098/Mum/2009
                                                                      Assessment Year: 2004-05


are also supported by the decision of ITAT Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India
(P)Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del).


4.     In view of above and also considering the provisions of Rule 19 of the Appellate
Tribunal Rules, 1963, appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed.







5.     In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution.


       Pronounced in the open court on     31st August, 2012




                  Sd/-                                            Sd/-
           (B.RAMAKOTAIAH)                                   (B.R. MITTAL)
           Accountant Member                                Judicial Member

Mumbai, Dated      31stAugust, 2012
Parida

Copy to:
1. The appellant
2. The respondent
3. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals),XVII, Mumbai
4. Commissioner of Income Tax, 17 , Mumbai
5. Departmental Representative, Bench `A' Mumbai

//TRUE COPY//                                               BY ORDER


                                             ASSTT. REGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI