IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : A BENCH : AHMEDABAD (BEFORE HONBLE SHRI T.K. SHARMA, J.M. & HON' BLE SHRI A.N.PAHUJA, A.M. ) I.T.A. NO. 2204/AHD./2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98 SUNRISE INDUSTRIES INDIA LTD., BARODA -VS.- THE I.T.O., WARD-4(4), BARODA (PAN : AACCS 9813J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI R.K.DHANESTA, D.R. O R D E R PER SHRI T.K. SHARMA, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE O RDER DATED 24.02.2010 PASSED BY THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-III, B ARODA FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. THE HEARING OF THE APPEAL WAS FIXED ON 04.02.20 11 AND THE NOTICE WAS DULY ISSUED BY REGISTERED POST. THE RECEIPT OF THE NOTICE HAS ALSO BEEN ACKNOWLEDGED BY THE ASSESSEE. HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING ON 04.02.2011, NEIT HER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR WAS THERE ANY APPLICATION SEEKING ADJ OURNMENT OF THE HEARING. THEREFORE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTING THE APPEAL. WHILE TAKING THIS VIEW, WE DERIVE SUPPORT FROM THE DECISIONS OF HONBLE MAD HYA 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 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 OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED. THE ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 0 4.02.2011. SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA) (T.K. SHARMA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 04/02/2011 2 COPY OF THE ORDER IS FORWARDED TO : 1) THE ASSESSEE 2) THE DEPARTMENT. 3) CIT(A.) CONCERNED, 4) CIT CONCERNED, 5) D.R., ITAT, AHMEDABAD. TRUE COPY BY ORDER DEPUTY REGISTRAR , ITAT, AHMEDABAD TALUKDAR/SR.P.S.