IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C, BENC H KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N.V.VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM IT(SS)A NOS.03 TO 07/KOL/2015 (A.Y: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2010-11, 2011-12 & 2012-13) AND IT(SS)A NOS.16 TO 18/KOL/2015 (A.Y: 2009-2010, 2010-2011 & 2011-2012) RAHEE INFRATECH LTD., 4, HO-CHI-MINH SARANI, FLAT-1C, KOLKATA-700071 VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXI, KOLKATA-700107 ./ ./PAN/GIR NO. : AABCR 2809 Q ( /APPELLANT ) .. ( / RESPONDENT ) /ASSESSEE BY : NONE /REVENUE BY : SHRI G. MALLIKARJUNA, CIT DR / DATE OF HEARING : 28/11/2016 /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT 28/11/2016 / O R D E R PER DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI, AM: THESE EIGHT CAPTIONED APPEALS FILED BY ONE ASSESSEE , PERTAINING TO DIFFERENT ASSESSMENT YEARS, ARE DIRECTED AGAINST TH E ORDER PASSED BY LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-21, KOLKATA IN APPEAL NOS.120/CC-4(4)/CIT(A)-21/14-15, 121/CC-4(4)/CIT(A) -21/14-15, 123/CC-4(4)/CIT(A)-21/14-15, 124/CC-4(4)/CIT(A)-21/ 14-15, 125/CC- 4(4)/CIT(A)-21/14-15, 323/CC-4(4)/CIT(A)-21/14-15, 324/CC-4(4)/CIT(A)- 21/14-15, AND 325/CC-4(4)/CIT(A)-21/14-15, ALL DAT ED 27.11.2014, WHICH IN TURN ARISES OUT OF ORDER PASSED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER (AO) UNDER SECTION.143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT 1961, (IN SHOR T THE ACT), DATED 31.03.2014. IT(SS)A NO.03 TO 07 & 16 TO 18/15 RAHEE INFRATECH LTD. 2 2. THESE APPEALS CAME FOR HEARING TODAY I.E. ON 28. 11.2016. THE NOTICE IN ALL THE APPEALS WERE SENT TO THE ASSESSEE FOR HEARING BY REGISTERED POST WITH AD ON 21.09.2016 TO THE ADDRES S GIVEN BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. N EITHER AN ADJOURNMENT PETITION WAS FILED IN RESPECT OF THE ABOVE ASSESSEE , IT MEANS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE APPEALS . HENCE, ALL APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED FO R NON PROSECUTION. FOR THIS VIEW, WE FIND SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECIS IONS :- 1. IN THE CASE OF CIT VS B.N.BHATTACHRGEE 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 V S CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MADE AT THE INS TANCE 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 PREPAR ATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. IN THE CASE OF COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX VS MUL TIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD.: 38 ITD 320(DEL), THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVE NUE BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL, WHICH WAS FIXED FOR HEARING. BUT ON THE D ATE OF HEARING NOBODY REPRESENTED THE REVENUE/APPELLANT NOR ANY CO MMUNICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT WAS RECEIVED. THERE WAS NO COMMUNICATIO N 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 FILED 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 MO VE THIS TRIBUNAL PRAYING FOR RECALLING THIS ORDER AND EXPLAINING REA SONS FOR NON-COMPLIANCE ETC. THEN THIS ORDER MAY BE RECALLED. IT(SS)A NO.03 TO 07 & 16 TO 18/15 RAHEE INFRATECH LTD. 3 4. IN THE RESULT, ALL THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE A RE DISMISSED FOR NON- PROSECUTION. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 28/ 11/2016. S D/ - (N.V.VASUDEVAN) S D/ - (DR. A.L.SAINI) / JUDICIAL MEMBER / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER /KOLKATA ; $% DATED 28/11/2016 & ()*/PRAKASH MISHRA , . / PS / COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : / BY ORDER, / ( ASSTT. REGISTRAR) ' #$% , / ITAT, 1. / THE APPELLANT- RAHEE INFRATECH LTD 2. / THE RESPONDENT.- DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE-XXI, KOLKATA-700107 3. 4 ( ) / THE CIT(A), KOLKATA. 4. 4 / CIT 5. 567 8 , 8 , / DR, ITAT, KOLKATA 6. 79 / GUARD FILE. 5 //TRUE COPY//