IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: D NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A.N. PAHUJA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO: 3825/DEL/2010 A.Y. : - 2006-2007 M/S KUNJAR MERCANTILE P.LTD. VS. ITO, OSD, RANGE 5 L 119, SHASTRI NAGAR NEW DELHI DELHI 110 052 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE. RESPONDENT BY : MS. Y.KAKKAR, SR.D.R. O R D E R PER DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER THIS IS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 16.7.2010 OF CIT(A)-VIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO A.Y. 2006-07 ON VARIOUS GROUNDS. 2. HOWEVER, AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESE NT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION RECEIV ED. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER IN THE FIRST ROUND DESPITE THE SAME THE RE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. A PERUSA L OF THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON 12.10.2010 AND 28.2.2011 HEARING WAS ADJOUR NED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE, ON 4.10.2011 THE ASSESSEE REMAINED UNREPRESENTED. THE RECORD ALSO SHOWS THAT NOTICE FOR THE DATE OF HEAR ING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE AS EARLY AS ON 28 TH FEB., 2012 FOR THE DATE OF HEARING I.E. ON 18.4.2012. IN VIEW OF THE PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCU MSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUIN G THE APPEAL, HENCE, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE UN ADMITTED/DISMISSED. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: ITA 3825/DEL/2010 PAGE 2 OF 3 KUNJAR MERCANTILE P.LTD. A.Y.: - 2006--07 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTH ER, 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 (M.P.) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE I NSTANCE 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 PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEAR ING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. M ULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REV ENUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNI CATION 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. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THESE DECISIONS (SUPRA), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESEE IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED/DISMISSED FOR NON PERSECUTION. WE MAY LIKE TO CLARIFY THAT SUBSEQUENTLY IF THE ASSESS EE MOVES AN APPROPRIATE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER AND EXPLAIN THE REASONS FOR NON APPEARANCE AND IF THE BENCH IS SO SATISFIED, TH E ORDER MAY BE RECALLED FOR THE PURPOSE OF ADJUDICATION OF THE APP EAL. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESS EE IS DISMISSED. PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 18 TH APRIL, 2012 IMMEDIATELY AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (A.N.PAHUJA ) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 18 TH APRIL, 2012 *MANGA ITA 3825/DEL/2010 PAGE 3 OF 3 KUNJAR MERCANTILE P.LTD. A.Y.: - 2006--07 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT; 2.RESPONDENT; 3.CIT; 4.CI T(A); 5.DR; 6.GUARD FILE BY ORDER DY. REGISTRAR