1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH H, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI N.V. VASUDEVAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI J. SUDHAKAR REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 605/MUM/2010. ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07. HARPRAKASH BHALLA, ADDL. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, C1/602, SHARDHA BUILDING, VS. RANGE-25(3), MUMBAI. ASHA NAGAR, KANDIVALI (E), MUMBAI 400 101. PAN ADMPB0813F (APPELLANT) (RE SPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : S HRI SANDEEP GOEL.. O R D E R PER J. SUDHAKAR REDDY : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTE D AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25 TH NOV.L, 2009 OF THE CIT(APPEALS)-35, MUMBAI FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. A NOTICE OF HEARING FIXING THE CAS E ON 27-09-2010 WAS ISSUED BY RPAD ON 19-08-2010 ON THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36 . THE SAME WAS RETURNED BACK WITH THE REMARK UNCLAIMED. THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT INTIMATED THE ANOTHER ADDRESS. NO APPLICATION SEEKING ADJOURNMENT OF THE CASE HAS BEEN FILED. THUS IT SEEMS 2 THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THEREFORE, FOLLOWING THE RATIO LAID DOWN BY THE TRI BUNAL IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN INDIA PVT. LTD., 38 ITD 320 AS WELL AS THE JUDGEMEN T OF HON'BLE MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT, 223 ITR 480, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LI MINE. 3. HOWEVER, IF THE ASSESSEE THROUGH PROPER APPL ICATION CAN SATISFY THE TRIBUNAL FOR SUCH NON-APPEARANCE ON THE DATE OF HEA RING, THE TRIBUNAL MAY, AT ITS DISCRETION, RECALL THE ORDER. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSES SEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 30 TH SEPT., 2010. SD/- S D/- (N.V. VASUDEVAN) (J. SUDHAKAR RED DY) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MUMBAI, DT: 30 TH SEPT., 2010. WAKODE COPY TO : 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, H-BENCH (TRUE COPY) BY ORDER ASSTT. R EGISTRAR, ITAT, MUMBAI B ENCHES