IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD B BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.60/HYD/2012 ASST. YEAR 2008-09 GOWTHAM CHAND JAIN (HUF), HYDERABAD. PAN: AABHG7699J VS ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10, HYDERABAD.. {APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.VIDISHA KALRA (DR) DATE OF HEARING : 06-12-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 06-12-2012. ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY,JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25-11-2011 PASSED BY THE CI T (A)- VI, HYDERABAD PERTAINING TO THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 200 8-09. 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TO-DAY I.E. ON 06-12- 2012. THIS DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESS EES COUNSEL ON EARLIER OCCASION OF HEARING I.E. ON 10-9 -2012 IN SPITE OF THIS, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS FILED. HENCE, WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. AS HELD BY T HE HONBLE ITAT, DELHI BENCH IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MU LTIPLAN INDIA LIMITED (38 ITD 320), THERE MAY BE VARIOUS RE ASONS FOR THE ASSESSEE TO REMAIN ABSENT AT THE TIME OF HE ARING. ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE A DESIGN OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO ITA60 OF 2012 GOWTHAM CHAND JAIN (HUF), HYD. 2 PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. BY FOLLOWING THE SAID DECISI ON AND CONSIDERING THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PRES ENT CASE, WE DISMISS THE APPEAL IN LIMINE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 06-12-201 2. S D/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) S D/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 6 TH DECEMBER, 2012. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. SRI GOWTHAM CHAND JAION, (HUF), 10-3-56, EAST MARREDPALLY, SECUNDERABAD. 2. ADDL. CIT, RANGE-10, HYDERABAD. 3. CIT (A)-VI, HYDERABAD. 4. CIT CONCERNED, HYDERABAD. 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD JMR* ITA60 OF 2012 GOWTHAM CHAND JAIN (HUF), HYD. 3