IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 817 & 476/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2009-10 & 2008-09 INTERZIGN SOLUTIONS (P) LTD., VS. DCIT, 504, 5 TH FLOOR, SALCON ARUM, CIRCLE 11(1), PLOT NO. 4, JASOLA DISTRICT CENTRE, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. AAACI6928C (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SR. DR ORDER PER H.S. SIDHU, J.M. THESE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AG AINST THE TWO SEPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI, DATED 22/01/2013 FOR A.Y. 2009-10 AND LD. CIT(A)-XV, NEW DELHI, DATED 21/12/2 012 FOR A.Y. 2008-09 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE AFORESAID APPEALS CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH ON 08/08/2013 AND ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF THE ASSESS EE, THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE WERE ADJOURNED FOR 20/11/2013 AND WAS DULY NOTED BY THE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE. ON 20/1 1/2014 AGAIN THE ASSESSEE FILED AN APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED TO THE ASSESSEE AND THE APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 02/04/20 14 AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT AND AGAIN T HE ASSESSEE HAS ITA NOS. 817 & 476/D/2013 INTERZIGN SOLUTIONS P. LTD. 2 ENDORSED THE SAME. ON 02/04/2014 ASSESSEE AGAIN RE QUESTED FOR ADJOURNMENT WHICH WAS GRANTED FOR 13/08/2014 I.E. T ODAY WHICH WAS ALSO DULY NOTED BY THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH PARTIES WERE AL SO INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT. 3. TODAY THE AFORESAID APPEALS CAME UP FOR HEARING BEFORE THE BENCH. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, ASSESSEE NOR HIS AR APPEARED N OR FILED ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT. 4. KEEPING IN VIEW ALL THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES EXPLAINED ABOVE, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND, THEREFORE, WE DISMISS THE SAME FOR NON-PROSECU TION, FINDING SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS: 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOT HER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 461 [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEI R 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 VS. CWT; 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 REFE RENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS. MULTI PLAN INDIA (P) LTD.; 38 ITD 320 (DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE B EFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE DATE OF HE ARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY COMMUNICA TION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATI ON OR INFORMATION AS TO WHY THE REVENUE CHOSE TO REMAIN ABSENT ON THA T DATE. THE TRIBUNAL ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS, TREATED THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE AS UN-ADMITTED IN VIEW OF THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963. ITA NOS. 817 & 476/D/2013 INTERZIGN SOLUTIONS P. LTD. 3 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13/08/ 2014 SD/- SD/- (R.S. SYAL) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 13/08/2014 *KAVITA COPY FORWARDED TO: - 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT TRUE COPY BY ORDER, ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITA NOS. 817 & 476/D/2013 INTERZIGN SOLUTIONS P. LTD. 4