IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCH B, PUNE BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 1172 TO 1176/PN/2011 (ASSTT. YEAR: 2002-03 AND 2004-05 TO 2007-08) SHRI HASMUKH B JAIN, SAN MAHU COMPLEX, 6 TH FLOOR, 5, BUND GARDEN ROAD, PUNE - 411001 PAN: AASPJ7132L .. APPELLANT VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE. .. RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY : NONE DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI K.K.OJHA DATE OF HEARING : 09.10.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09.10.2012 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE FIVE APPEALS HAVE BEEN FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-I, PUNE. 2. IN THIS CASE, HEARING WAS FIXED ON 09.10.2012 BU T NEITHER ASSESSEE ATTENDED NOR THERE WAS ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING HIS A PPEAL. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE C ASE OF B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR., 118 ITR 461 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN ONLY FILING OF MEMO OF APPEAL BUT ALSO PURSUIN G IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHERENT POW ER TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON-PROSECUTION, AS HELD BY HONBLE HIGH COURT OF MUMBAI IN THE CASE OF M/S CHEMIPOL VS . UNION OF INDIA IN EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. IN VIEW O F THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE HONBLE COURTS AND ALSO FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN ( INDIA) LTD., 38 ITD 320 AND MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR 223 ITR 480 (MP), WE DISMISS THE A PPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE FIVE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 9 TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2012. SD/- SD/- ( R.K.PANDA ) ( SHAILENDRA KUMAR YA DAV ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER PUNE, DATED 9 TH OCTOBER, 2012 GSPS COPY TO:- 1) ASSESSEE, 2) THE DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE. 3) THE CIT(A)-I, PUNE. 4) THE CIT-I, PUNE. 5) THE DR, B BENCH, I.T.A.T., PUNE. 6) GUARD FILE BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// PRIVATE SECRETARY, ITAT PUNE BENCHES, PUNE.