IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD A BENCH, HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.990/HYD/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR 1995-96 M/S. PENNAR ALUMINUM COMPANY LTD., HYDERABAD PAN:AABCP 8988 Q VS THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD { APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI V. SRINIVAS DATE OF HEARING : 02-04-2012 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 02-04-2012. ORDER PER SAKTIJIT DEY,JUDICIAL MEMBER. THIS APPEAL PREFERRED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE CIT(A) IV, HYDERAB AD DATED 2.7.2010 AND IT PERTAINS TO THE ASSESSMENT Y EAR 1995-96. 2. THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING TO-DAY I.E. ON 2-04- 2012. THIS DATE OF HEARING WAS NOTED BY THE ASSESS EES COUNSEL ON EARLIER OCCASION OF HEARING I.E. ON 26-1 2-2011, IN SPITE OF THIS, NEITHER ANYBODY APPEARED ON BEHAL F OF 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. 2 ONE OF THE REASONS MIGHT BE A DESIGN OR ABSENCE OF NEED TO 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 02-04-20 12. SD/ - (CHANDRA POOJARI ) SD/ - (SAKTIJIT DEY) ACCOUNTANT M EMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 2 ND APRIL, 2012. COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. C/O M/S. RAM BABU & CO., CAS, 31, PANCOM CHAMBER, RB ROAD, HYDERABAD. 2. THE ACIT, CIRCLE 2(3), HYDERABAD 3. THE CIT(A)-IV, HYDERABAD 4. THE CIT, HYDERABAD 5. THE DR, ITAT, HYDERABAD JMR* 3