IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH A, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.S. PANNU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1017/PN/2009: A.Y. 2004-05 SHRI NARENDRA KATARIA 120 VEER ASHOKA APARTMENT, 60 LULLANAGAR, KONDHWA PUNE-411 048 PAN ABGPK 1452 K APPELLANT VS. I.T.O. WARD 2(2) PUNE RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI ABHAY DAMLE ORDER PER SHAIALENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JM THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-II PUNE DATED 23-6-2009 FOR A .Y. 2004- 05. 2. THIS APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 23-11-2010 FOR WHICH A NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 8-11- 2010 BY REGD. POST WHICH HAS NOT BEEN RECEIVED UNSE RVED. SO IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE HAS RECEIVED TH E SAME. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED TO DEFEND THE CASE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE WHEN THE APPEAL CAME UP FOR HEARING ON 23- 11- 2010 NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. UNDER T HESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT MAY BE REASONABLY CONCLUDED THAT THE PAGE 2 OF 2 ITA NO. 1017/PN/2009 NARENDRA KATARIA A.Y. 2004-05 ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. IN SUCH CASES, THE COURTS/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POWERS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION AS HELD BY H ONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. ON THE FACT S OF THE CASE, WE ARE CONVINCED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INT ERESTED IN PURSUING THIS APPEAL. WE THEREFORE, DISMISS THI S APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. DECISION PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE CONCLU SION OF THE HEARING ON 23-11-2010. SD/- SD/- (G.S. PANNU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE DATED THE 23 RD NOVEMBER 2010 ANKAM COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A)- II PUNE 4. THE CIT- III PUNE 5. THE D.R, A BENCH, PUNE 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE