IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, D BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI , JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 4043/ AHD/2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR 2005-06.) MOHAMMEDKASIM ABUBAKAR BHORANIA, PROP. OF M/S. SADIK TEXTILES, 97-1, PAIKI OUTSIDE KAMELA DARWAJA, NEAR SHEETAL HOTEL, RING ROAD, SURAT VS. ITO, WARD 2(3), SURAT PAN/GIR NO. : AAMPB8635L (APPELLANT) .. (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI B L YADAV, DR DATE OF HEARING: 17.01.2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 17.01.2012 O R D E R PER SHRI A. K. GARODIA, AM:- THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) II, SURAT DATED 13.10.2008 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2005-06. 2. THE NOTICE OF HEARING OF THIS APPEAL WAS SENT BY RPAD BUT THE SAME HAS COME BACK UNSERVED WITH THE REMARKS INSUF FICIENT ADDRESS. THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE OFFICE OF THE TRIBUNAL FOR SERVING THE NOTICE IS AS PER THE ADDRESS PROVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE IN PARA 10 OF FORM 36 FILED BY THE ASSESSEE. UNDER THESE FACTS, IT IS NOT POSSIBL E TO SERVE THE NOTICE ON I.T.A.NO.4043 /AHD/2008 2 THE ASSESSEE. SINCE PROPER ADDRESS HAS NOT BEEN PR OVIDED BY THE ASSESSEE ON WHICH NOTICE CAN BE SERVED ON THE ASSESSEE, IT I S INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PURSUING HIS APPEAL A ND HENCE, THE SAME IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS:- IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHE R, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 (RELEVANT PAGES 477 AND 478) WHEREIN TH EIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FIL ING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS C IT 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 HEARING OF THE REFERENC E, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS MULTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL WAS FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE THE TRIB UNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NOB ODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJ OURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATION OR INFORMATIO N AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON DATE. THE TR IBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS I.T.A.NO.4043 /AHD/2008 3 UNADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. 4. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THE DATE M ENTIONED HEREINABOVE. SD./- SD./- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (A. K. GARODIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SP COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE APPLICANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT CONCERNED 4. THE LD. CIT (APPEALS) 5. THE DR, AHMEDABAD BY ORDER 6. THE GUARD FILE AR,ITAT,AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION 7/2 2. DATE ON WHICH THE TYPED DRAFT IS PLACED BEFORE THE DICTATING MEMBER 7/2.OTHER MEMBER 3. DATE ON WHICH THE APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. P .S./P.S. 4. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER IS PLACED BEFORE THE D ICTATING MEMBER FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 17/01 5. DATE ON WHICH THE FAIR ORDER COMES BACK TO THE SR. P.S./P.S. 08/2 6. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE BENCH CLERK 08/02 7. DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE HEAD CLERK .. 8. THE DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO THE ASSISTANT RE GISTRAR FOR SIGNATURE ON THE ORDER . 9. DATE OF DESPATCH OF THE ORDER. .