IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : B NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 3139,3140/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-08 M/S. FRESHTEX BANGALORE PVT. LTD. VS. ITO C/O MR. SARWAR RAZA, ADVOCATE WAR D-11(3) D-11, BASEMENT, MAHARANI BAGH, NEW D ELHI. NEW DELHI 110 065. (PAN AAACF9346D) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY :- NONE DEPARTMENT BY:- SMT. PARWINDER KAUR, SR. DR O R D E R PER T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THESE TWO APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECT ED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD.CIT(A), XIII, NEW DELHI DT. 3.1.2013 & DATED 29. 1.2013 RESPECTIVELY FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08 CONFIRMING AN ASSESSMENT OR DER U/S 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 AND CONFIRMING PENALTY U/S 271 (1)(C) OF THE ACT. THE APPEALS WERE FIXED FOR HEARING ON 18.11.2013 BUT WE RE ADJOURNED TO 22.4.2014 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF LD. AR AND AFTER THAT TH ESE APPEALS HAD COME FOR HEARING TODAY. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS P RESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS ON RECORD. THEREFORE, THE 2 CASES WERE PASSED OVER. IN THE SECOND ROUND ALSO NO BODY APPEARED ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. WE FIND THAT NOTICE INTIMATING THE DATE O F HEARING WAS DULY SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THESE FACTS WE ARE OF THE VIEW THA T THE ASSESSEE DOES NOT SEEM TO BE INTERESTED IN PURSUING ITS APPEALS BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) , WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTAN CE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATIONS:- IF THE PARTY AT WHOSE INSTANCE, THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 2. ITAT DELHI BENCH D IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD. 38 ITD 320 OBSERVED THAT THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 STATE THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT THE APPEAL HAD BEEN A DMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIES THE POSITION. THERE MIGHT BE VARIOUS REAS ONS WITH THE APPELLANT TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HEARING. ONE OF THE R EASONS MIGHT ALSO BE A DESIRE OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL OR LIABI LITY TO ASSIST THE TRIBUNAL IN A PROPER MANNER OR TO TAKE BENEFIT OF VAGARIES OF LAW . 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENTS, THE APPEA LS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE TREATED AS UN-ADMITTED AND DISMISSED IN LIMINE. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY, IF THE ASSESSEE EXPLAINS THE REASONS FOR NON-APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, THE MATTER MAY BE RECALLED F OR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APPEALS. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION 5. THIS DECISION WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT O N THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF I.E. ON 28 TH AUGUST, 2015. SD/- SD/- (BEENA A PILLAI) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCO UNTANT MEMBER DATED: THE 28 TH AUGUST, 2015 VEENA COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR 6. GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR SL. NO. DESCRIPTION DATE 1. DATE OF DICTATION BY THE AUTHOR 28.8..2015 2. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 28.8.2 015 3. DRAFT PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER 4. DRAFT APPROVED BY THE SECOND MEMBER 5. DATE OF APPROVED ORDER COMES TO THE SR. PS 6. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT OF ORDER 7. DATE OF FILE SENT TO THE BENCH CLERK 8. DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK 9. DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER