IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
            DELHI BENCH : SMC-1 : NEW DELHI

      BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                        ITA No.3651/Del/2015
                       Assessment Year : 2010-11

Sh. Dinesh Kumar Mangla            Vs.           ITO, Ward-1(2),
R/o H. No. 1025, Village                         CGO, Complex,
Prithla, Dist. Palwal,                           NH-IV,
Haryana - 121102                                 New Delhi


       (Appellant)                             (Respondent)

            Appellant by : None
            Respondent by: Shri OM Prakash Meena, Sr. D.R.

            Date of Hearing:             31.07.2015
            Date of Pronouncement:       31.07.2015

                                 ORDER


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

 the CIT(A) on 17.04.2015 in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11.

 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 unserved. In these circumstances, it appears that

 the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. The appeal filed
                                                               ITA No 3651/DEL/15
                                                                                    2







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 Income-
       tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963.
                                                            ITA No 3651/DEL/15
                                                                                 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 31st July,

       2015.


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

Dated: 31st July, 2015

Aks


Copy forwarded to

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