IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI E BENCH MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI RAJENDRA SINGH, AM & SHRI VIJAY PAL R AO, JM ITA NO. 4041/MUM/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06) TEAM ONE ARCHITECTS (INDIA)P LTD LEVEL 3 A WINGH AMBA BHAVAN PLOT NO. 29, SION CIRCLE SION (E) MUMBAI 22 VS DY. COMMR OF INCOME TAX 10(3),MUMBAI (APPELLANT ) (RESPONDENT) PAN NO. AABCT4295Q ASSESSEE BY NONE REVENUE BY SHRI ABANI KANT NAYAK DT.OF HEARING 6 TH JUNE 2012 DT OF PRONOUNCEMENT 6 TH JUNE 2012 ORDER PER VIJAY PAL RAO, JM THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAIN ST THE ORDER DATED 7 TH MARCH 2011 OF THE CIT(A) FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2 005-06. 2 THIS CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 6 TH JUNE 2012 ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. DESPITE THE SAME, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE AS SESSEE WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLED FOR HEARING ON 6 TH JUNE 2012. IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN THE PROSECUTION OF THE CASE. WE FIND THAT THE RATI O EMANATING FROM THE DECISION RENDERED BY HONBLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN TH E CASE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX 223 ITR 480 A ND THE TRIBUNAL DECISION IN CIT VS. MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED 38 ITD 320 IS THAT THE APPE AL CAN BE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. HENCE, FOLLOWING THE PRECEDENT, WE DI SMISS THIS APPEAL FOR NON- PROSECUTION IN LIMINE. TEAM ONE ARCHITECTS (INDIA)P LTD 2 3 HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPLICATI ON CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEARING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY AT ITS DISCRETION RECALL THIS ORDER. 4 IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE I S DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF H EARING I.E ON 6 TH JUNE 2012 SD/ SD/- ( RAJENDRA SINGH ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ( VIJAY PAL RAO ) JUDICIAL MEMBER PLACE: MUMBAI : DATED: 6 TH , JUNE 2012 RAJ* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1 APPELLANT 2 RESPONDENT 3 CIT 4 CIT(A) 5 DR /TRUE COPY/ BY ORDER DY /AR, ITAT, MUMBAI