IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH `G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI U.B.S. BEDI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.2624/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) SATISH JAIN, VS. ITO, WARD 25(3), HOUSE NO.109, ARIHANT NAGAR, NEW DELHI. PUNJABI BAGH, NEW DELHI.110 014. (PAN/GIR NO.ABLP)J3128N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. SRUJANI MOHANTY, SR.DR ORDER PER U.B.S. BEDI, J.M. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI DATED 16.03.2012, RELEVANT TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FOUND TO BE DEFECTIVE INASMUCH AS TRIBUNAL FEE WAS PAID SHORT AND AMOUNT WAS ALSO NOT PAID UNDER CORRECT HEAD FOR WHI CH DEFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED ALONG WITH NOTICE OF HEARING SUFFICIENTLY IN ADVANCE. NE ITHER ASSESSEE MADE PAYMENT OF LESS FEE NOR FILED ANY CORRECTION OF CHALLAN. ASSESSEE HAS ALSO NOT APPEARED AT THE TIME OF HEARING WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING. T HUS, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THE PRESENT APPEAL . 3. HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF ITAT RULES, 1963 AND FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD., REPORTED IN 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) AND THE JUDGMENT OF HONBLE MADHYA P RADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF I.T.A. NO.2624/DEL./2012 (A.Y. : 2002-03) 2 ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 I.T.R. 480 (MP), WE TREAT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE AS UNADMITTED AND DISMISS THE SAME. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 31.08.2012. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (U.B.S. BEDI ) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : AUG. 31, 2012 SKB COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A)-XXIV, NEW DELHI. 5. CIT(ITAT) DEPUTY REGISTRAR, ITAT