IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL A BENCH : KOLKATA [BEFORE HONBLE SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM & SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM] I.T.A NO. 814/KOL/201 5 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2007-0 8 SRI PRASANTA GHOSH -VS.- ADDL. C.I.T., R ANGE-2, MIDNAPUR MIDNAPUR. [PAN : AFEPG 8624 D] (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) FOR THE APPELLANT : NONE FOR THE RESPONDENT : SHRI SALLONG YADEN, ADD L.CIT,DR. DATE OF HEARING : 05.10.2017. DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.10.2017. ORDER PER SHRI M.BALAGANESH, AM 1. THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE ARISES OUT OF THE OR DER OF THE LEARNED COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) -XXXVI, KOLKATA [ IN SHORT THE LD CITA] IN APPEAL NO. 873/CIT(A)-XXXVI/KOL/R-2,MID./09-10 DATED 02.12.201 1 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-2, MIDNAPORE [ IN SHORT THE LD AO] UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF THE ACT DATED 24.12.2009 FOR THE ASST YEAR 2007-08. 2. THIS APPEAL CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 05.10 .2017. THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 31.08.2017 TO THE ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. BUT THE NOTICE RETURNED UNSERVED WITH THE REMARK BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES AS LEFT. HOWEVE R NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. NEITHER AN ADJ OURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEAL. HENCE THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISI ONS :- 2 ITA NO.814/KOL/2015 SRI PRASANTA GHOSH A.YR.2007-08 2 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHARGEE AND ANO THER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR 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 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INSTANCE OF TH E ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT MADE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION IN THEIR 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 REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REF ERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE BEFORE TH E TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESEN TED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE W AS NO COMMUNICATION 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 FI LED BY THE REVENUE AS UN ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. 3 . THE ASSESSEE, IF SO DESIRED, SHALL BE FREE TO MOVE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REASONS FOR NON-COMPLIANC E ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. 4. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIS MISSED FOR NON-PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN TH E COURT ON 05.10.2017. SD/- SD/- [S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI] [ M.BALAGAN ESH] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER DATED : 05.10.2017. [SB SPS] 3 ITA NO.814/KOL/2015 SRI PRASANTA GHOSH A.YR.2007-08 3 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1.SHRI PRASANTA GHOSH,VILL. & P.O.-GOPSAI, C.K.TOWN , DIST. PASCHIM MIDNAPUR, PIN- 721 101. 2. ADDL.C.I.T., RANGE-2, MIDNAPUR. 3. CIT(A)-XXXVI, KOLKATA 4. CIT-XIX, KOLK ATA. 5. CIT(DR), KOLKATA BENCHES, KOLKATA. TRUE COPY BY ORDER SENIOR PRIVATE SECRET ARY HEAD OF OFFICE/D.D.O.. ITAT, KOLKATA BENCHES