IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL D, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L.SAI NI, AM ./ ITA NO.226&227/KOL/2015 ( / ASSESSMENT YEAR:2003-2004 & 2005-06) S.L.ROY & SONS, C/O. SMT. JHUMU ROY, SASANKAPALLY, SAGARBHANGA, DURGAPUR PIN-713211 VS. ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR-713216 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AALFS 9256 R ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY :NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI PRADIP MONDAL, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 28/10/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/10/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THESE TWO CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE, PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2003-04 & 2005-06, ARE DIRECTE D AGAINST THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME T AX (APPEALS)- DURGAPUR, IN APPEAL NOS.4&5/CIT(A)/DGP/08-09, DATED 11.11.2008, WHICH IN TURN ARISE OUT OF THE COMMON ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION.144/1447OF THE INCOME TA X ACT 1961, (IN SHORT THE ACT), DATED 13.12.2007. 2. BOTH THESE APPEALS CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. O N 28.10.20016. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 28.06.2016 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESS EE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NEITHER AN ADJOURNMENT PETI TION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE, IT MEANS THAT ASSESS EE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEALS. HENCE BOTH THE APPEALS FI LED BY THE ASSESSEE ITA NO.226&227/15 S.L.ROY & SONS 2 ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHRGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 2. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V S CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INS TANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN T HEIR ORDER : IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPAR ATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE D ATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATIO N OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN A BSENT ON THAT DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE T O MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REA SONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, BOTH APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSE E ARE DISMISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28/1 0/2016. SD/ - (S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI) SD/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 28/10/2016 & ()* /PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS ITA NO.226&227/15 S.L.ROY & SONS 3 / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) & ' , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT-S.L.ROY & SONS 2. / THE RESPONDENT.-ACIT, CIRCLE-2, DURGAPUR. 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 56 7 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 7 9 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//