IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD D BENCH AHMADABAD , , , , BEFORE SHRI MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND , SHRI T.R. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER .. , ! ' ! ' ! ' ! ' ITA NO. 2944/AHD/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR :2007-08 VIJESH SHANTILAL MEHTA, PROP. OF SUNRISE ENTERPRISE, LAKKADPITHA ROAD, BARODA V/S . INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5(3), BARODA PAN NO. A AGPM3405M (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) #$ % & / BY APPELLANT NONE '(#$ % & /BY RESPONDENT SHRI K. C. MATHEWS, SR. D.R. )* % /DATE OF HEARING 25.02.2014 +,- % /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 14.03.2014 O R D E R PER : T.R.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS IS AN APPEAL AT THE BEHEST OF THE ASSESSEE WH ICH HAS EMANATED FROM THE ORDER OF CIT(A)-V, BARODA, DATED 08.09.201 0 FOR A.Y. 2007-08. THE ASSESSMENT WAS FRAMED BY INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-5 (3), U/S. 143(3) OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. AT THE OUT SET, IT IS SEEN FROM THE RECORDS THAT NOTICE HAS BEEN ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE ON 03.02.2014 HOWEVER, ON THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. 25.02.2014, ITA NO. 2944/AHD/2010 A.Y.2007-08 VIJESH SHANTILAL MEHTA VS. ITO PAGE 2 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR FILED A NY ADJOURNMENT PETITION. THIS SHOWS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN P ROSECUTING THIS APPEAL. 3. IN VIEW OF THESE FACTS, IT IS CLEAR THAT THE ASS ESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF THIS APPEAL AND ACCORDINGLY, FOLLOWI NG THE DECISION OF THE MULTIPLAN (INDIA) (P) LTD., (38 ITD 320), WE DISMISS THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR WANT OF PROSECUTION. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THIS ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 14/03/2014 SD/- SD/- ( MUKUL KR. SHRAWAT) (T.R. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER TRUE COPY S.K.SINHA . . . . % %% % '/ '/ '/ '/ 0/- 0/- 0/- 0/- / COPY OF ORDER FORWARDED TO:- 1. #$ / APPELLANT 2. '(#$ / RESPONDENT 3. 44 5 / CONCERNED CIT 4. 5- / CIT (A) 5. /9: ') , , / DR, ITAT, AHMEDABAD 6. :< => / GUARD FILE. BY ORDER/ . , ?/ 4A , '