, , . .. . . .. . , , , , ! !! ! . .. .'# !'# '# !'# '# !'# '# !'# , $ $ $ $ % % % % IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : B BENCH : AHMEDABAD BEFORE HONBLE SHRI D.K.TYAGI, J.M. & HONBLE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, A.M.) ! ! ! !. ITA NO. 1482/AHD./2009 : # &'- 2006-2007 M/S. AMBICA TEXTILES, SURAT VS - ACIT, CIRCLE-9, SURAT (PAN : AAHFA 4219Q) (*+ /APPELLANT) ( ,*+ /RESPONDENT ) *+ - . / APPELLANT BY : NONE ,*+ - . / RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SAMIR TEKRIWAL, SR.D.R. /#0 - 1$ / DATE OF HEARING : 02/10/2011 2'& - 1$ / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02/11/2011 3 3 3 3 / ORDER PER SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL IS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, AGGRIEVED WI TH THE ORDER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-V, SURAT IN APP EAL NO.CAS-V/158/2008-09 DATED 30.03.2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007 PASSED UNDER SECTION 250 R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, IT IS OBSERVED THAT DES PITE THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST WITH A/D FIXING THE DATE OF HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 02.11.2011, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR WAS THERE ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE HEARING. THEREFORE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. C.W.T. [223 I.T.R. 480] AND I .T.A.T., DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE ITA NO. 1482-AHD-09 2 OF C.I.T. VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. [38 I.T.D. 320]. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR WAN T OF PROSECUTION. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 4 3 - 2'& 5#!' 02 / 11 /2011 ' 6 - 0 7 THIS ORDER PRONOUNCED IN COURT ON 02/11/2011. SD/- SD/- (D.K.TYAGI) (A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT M EMBER DATED : 02/11/2011 3 3 3 3 - -- - ,18 ,18 ,18 ,18 98&1' 98&1' 98&1' 98&1'- -- - 1. *+ 2. ,*+ 3. !! 1 /= 4. /=- - 5. 8@ ,1# , , 7 6. B4 3 , C/ !E , 7 TALUKDAR/ SR. P.S.