IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES SMC : DELHI BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA.NO.3531/DEL./2018 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2013-2014 SHRI RAJ KUMAR YADAV, PROP. M/S. PARAS TRAVELS, H.NO.810, SECTOR-4, NEAR RAM MANDIR, GURUGRAM PIN 122 001. PAN ADSPK5609G VS. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-3(1), GURGAON. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR ASSESSEE : - NONE - FOR REVENUE : DR. ANJULA JAIN, SR. D.R. DATE OF HEARING : 18 . 1 0.2018 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 18 . 10 .2018 ORDER THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A)-1, GURGAON, DATED 19.02.2018, FOR THE A.Y. 2013-2014. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN 2 ITA.NO.3531/DEL./2018 SHRI RAJ KUMAR YADAV, GURUGRAM. PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN VIEW OF THE ABOVE AND HAVING REGARD TO RULE 19(2) OF INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES AND FOLLOWING VARIOUS DECISIONS OF DELHI BENCH OF THE TRIBUNAL INCLUDING THAT OF MULTIPLAN INDIA LTD., 38 ITD 320 (DEL.); HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT DECISION IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), AND ALSO THE DECISION OF HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAGE 477-478) WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE SAME, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS UN-ADMITTED. 4. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. 3 ITA.NO.3531/DEL./2018 SHRI RAJ KUMAR YADAV, GURUGRAM. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED 18 TH OCTOBER, 2018 VBP/- COPY TO 1. THE APP ELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. CIT(A) CONCERNED 4. CIT CONCERNED 5. D.R. ITAT SMC BENCH, DELHI 6. GUARD FILE. // BY ORDER // ASSISTANT REGISTRAR : ITAT DELHI BENCHES : DELHI.