IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM] I.T.A NO. 690/KOL/201 2 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-0 9 I.T.O., WARD-1, -VS.- SK.AMINUL ISLAM HALDIA PURBA MEDINIPUR [PAN : AAPPI 5098 F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) C.O.NO.62/KOL/2012 (A/O I.T.A NO. 690/KOL/2012 ) ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2008-0 9 SK.AMINUL ISLAM -VS.- I.T.O., WARD-1, PURBA MEDINIPUR HALDIA [PAN : AAPPI 5098 F] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE DEPARTMENT : NONE FOR THE ASSESSEE : NONE DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2016. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2016. ORDER PER N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM ITA NO.690/KOL/2012 IS AN APPEAL BY THE REVENUE AGA INST THE ORDER DATED 27.02.2012 OF CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA RELATING TO AY 2008-09. THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTION AGAINST THE VERY SAME ORDER O F CIT(A). 2. THOUGH THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED A CROSS OBJECTION ON SEVERAL OCCASIONS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THEREFORE NOTIC E WAS DIRECTED TO BE SERVED THROUGH DR BY THE TRIBUNAL ON 15.01.2014, 07.01.2015, 15.06 .2015, 17.09.2015, 13.01.2016, 15.03.2016 AND 19.05.2016. THE DEPARTMENT HAS NOT C OMPLIED WITH THE DIRECTIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL. TODAY WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARI NG NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE DEPARTMENT. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE . IT APPEARS THAT BOTH THE REVENUE 2 ITA NO.690/KOL/2012 AND C.O. NO.62/KOL/2012 SK.AMINUL ISLAM. A.YR.2008-09 2 AND THE ASSESSEE ARE NOT SERIOUS IN PROSECUTING TH IS APPEAL AND THE CROSS OBJECTION RESPECTIVELY. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSEC UTION. FOR THIS VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHRGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT : THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, 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 REF ERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE W AS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3 . THE REVENUE AND THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REA SONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND CRO SS OBJECTION OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 26.07.2016. SD/- SD/- [DR.ARJUN LAL SAINI] [ N.V.VASUDEVA N ] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26.07.2016. [RG PS] 3 ITA NO.690/KOL/2012 AND C.O. NO.62/KOL/2012 SK.AMINUL ISLAM. A.YR.2008-09 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. SK.AMINUL ISLAM, VILL,KOTEBARH, P.O.UTTAR KOTEBA RH, P.S.BHAGWANPUR, EGRA, PURBA MEDINIPUR, PIN: 721626. 2. I.T.O., WARD-1, HALDIA. 3. CIT(A)-XXXIII, KOLKATA. 4. CIT-XVIII, KO LKATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSTT.REGISTRAR, ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES