, , . .. . . .. . , , , , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : SMC BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M .) . / I.T.A. NO. 1825/AHD./2011 ! '# ! '# ! '# ! '# / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-2007 PRINT RITE, DAMAN -VS- I.T.O., VAPI WARD-4, DAMAN (PAN : AADFP 8154B) $% / APPELLANT &'$% / RESPONDENT $% ( ) / APPELLANT BY NONE &'$% ( ) / RESPONDENT BY SHRI H.P.MEENA, SR.D.R. *!' + ( , - / DATE OF HEARING 07.09.2011 ./# ( , - / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 07.09.2011 / ORDER THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 25.02.2011 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), V ALSAD FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-2007. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 07.09.20 11. DESPITE THE NOTICE OF HEARING SENT THROUGH REGISTERED POST WITH A/D FIXING THE DA TE OF HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 07.09.2011, 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 T HE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. C.W.T. [223 I.T.R. 480] AND I.T.A.T., D ELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF C.I.T. VS. 2 ITA NO. 1825-AHD-2011 MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD. [38 I.T.D. 320]. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ABOVE DECISIONS, WE DISMISS THE ASSESSEES APPEAL FOR WANT OF PROSECUTI ON. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. 0 ( ./# 1! 2 07 / 09 /2011 / 3 ( 4+ 5 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 07.09.2011. SD/- (T.K. SHARMA) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 07/09/2011 ( (( ( &,6 &,6 &,6 &,6 76#, 76#, 76#, 76#, / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. $% / APPELLANT 2. &'$% / RESPONDENT 3. , *; / CONCERNED CIT 4. *;- / CIT (A) 5. 6'? 4 &,!, , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. 4 A B 0 / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ , C / D , 5 TALUKDAR/SR.P.S.