IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES A : HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI P.M. JAGTAP, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.1348, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352 & 1353/HYD/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS 2004-05, 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 , 2008-09 AND 2009-2010 MR. SYED M. MEHDI HYDERABAD. PAN AHRPM4166D VS. ACIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HYDERABAD. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : -NONE- FOR REVENUE : MR. P. SOMASEKHAR REDDY DATE OF HEARING : 21.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 21.05.2015 ORDER PER BENCH : THESE SIX APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIREC TED AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER OF THE LD. CIT (CENTRAL), HYDERABAD DATED 27.03.2013 PASSED UNDER SECTION 263 WHEREBY H E REVISED THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE A.O. UNDER SECTION 143(3) READ WITH SECTION 153A OF THE ACT FOR A.YS. 2004-20 05 TO 2009- 2010. 2. IN THIS CASE, THE HEARING WAS INITIALLY FIXED B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL ON 04.02.2014. THE ASSESSEE HOWEVER SO UGHT ADJOURNMENT ON THE SAID DATE FOR THE REASON THAT SO ME ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS TO BE FILED BY HIM. THE HEA RING ACCORDINGLY WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.05.2014. HOWEVER, N O SUCH ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE WAS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE BY 19 .05.2014. ON THE OTHER HAND, THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOUR NMENT OF 2 ITA.NOS.1348 TO 1353/HYD/2013 MR. SYED M. MEHDI, HYDERABAD. THE HEARING FIXED ON 19.05.2014 BY FILING AN APPLIC ATION. SINCE NO REASON WHATSOEVER WAS GIVEN IN THE SAID APPLICAT ION FOR SEEKING ADJOURNMENT, A TOKEN COST OF RS.100 WAS IMP OSED BY THE TRIBUNAL ON THE ASSESSEE WHILE ADJOURNING THE H EARING TO 15.10.2014. THE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 15.10.201 4 AND HEARING THEREFORE WAS ADJOURNED TO 07.01.2015. THE ASSESSEE AGAIN SOUGHT ADJOURNMENT ON 07.01.2015 AND ACCORDIN GLY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED BY THE BENCH TO 21.05.2015. O N 21.05.2015 I.E., TODAY, NONE HOWEVER HAS APPEARED O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING NOR ANY APPLICA TION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED. THIS CASUAL AND NON-COM PLIANT ATTITUDE OF THE ASSESSEE CLEARLY SHOWS THAT HE IS N OT SERIOUSLY INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THESE APPEALS FILED BEFOR E THE TRIBUNAL. 3. IT HAS BEEN HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME C OURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. N. BHATTACHARJEE & ANOTHER(S C) SUPREME COURT DECISION DT,04-05-1979, 118 ITR 461(SC) AT PA GES 477/478 THAT APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN FILING MEMO OF AP PEAL BUT ALSO PURSUING IT EFFECTIVELY. IN CASES WHERE ASSESS EE DOES NOT WANT TO PURSUE THE APPEAL, COURT/TRIBUNAL HAVE INHE RENT POWERS TO DISMISS THE APPEAL FOR NON PROSECUTION AS HELD BY THE HON'BLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF M/S. C HEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009. 4. HENCE FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF THE TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., REPOR TED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL), AS ALSO THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TU KOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, REPORTED IN 223 ITR 480 (MP), AND F URTHER THE DECISION OF THE HONBLE BOMBAY HIGH COURT DATED 17. 09.2010 IN THE CASE OF M/S. CHEMIPOL VS. UNION OF INDIA IN CENTRAL 3 ITA.NOS.1348 TO 1353/HYD/2013 MR. SYED M. MEHDI, HYDERABAD. EXCISE APPEAL NO. 62 OF 2009, WE TREAT THESE APPEAL S AS UN- ADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME FOR WANT OF PROSECUTI ON BY THE ASSESSEE. 5. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 21.05.2015. SD/- SD/- (SAKTIJIT DEY) (P.M. JAGTAP) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER HYDERABAD, DATED 21 ST MAY, 2015 VBP/- COPY TO 1. MR. SYED M. MEHDI, HYDERABAD C/O. RAVINDRA CHENJI, ADVOCATE, C-308, AHUJA ESTATE, HYDERABAD. 2. ASST. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT-(CENTRAL), 7 TH FLOOR, AAYAKAR BHAVAN, BASHEERBAGH, HYDERABAD. 4. ADDL. CIT, C.R.-2, HYDERABAD. 5. D.R. I.T.A.T. A BENCH, HYDERABAD. 6. GUARD FILE