IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P.JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER M.A.NOS. 11 & 12(ASR)/2010 (ARISING OUT OF I.T.A. NOS.427 & 428(ASR)/2009) ASSESSMENT YEARS:2001-02 & 2003-04 PAN :AABCB3927M M/S. BROADWAY OVERSEAS LTD; VS. THE ADDL. COMMR. OF INCOME TAX, JALANDHAR. RANGE-1, JALANDHAR. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY:NONE RESPONDENT BY:SH.TARSEM LAL, DR DATE OF HEARING: 14/06/2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT:14/06/2013 ORDER PER BENCH ; THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED BOTH THESE MISCELLANEOUS AP PLICATIONS AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE TRIBUNAL DATED 26 TH NOV., 2009 PASSED IN ITA NOS. 427 & 428(ASR)/2009 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEARS 2001-02 & 20 03-04 FOR RECTIFICATION UNDER SECTION 254(2) OF THE ACT. 2. NOTICE OF HEARING WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE BY RP AD ON 17.04.2013 FOR TODAY I.E. 14.06.2013 BUT NEITHER THE ASSESSEE NOR HIS AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE APPEARED NOR FILED ANY REQUEST FOR A DJOURNMENT. EARLIER THE 2 CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING 13.08.2010 BUT WAS ADJOU RNED TO 10.09.2010 ON THE REQUEST OF SH. ASHWANI MITTAL CA. AGAIN ON 10. 09.2010 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 5.10.2010 AT THE REQUEST OF SH. ASHWAN I MITTAL,CA. ON 05/10/2010 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.10.2010 AS BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. AGAIN ON 22.10.2010, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 19.1 1.2010. ON 19.11.2010, THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 24.12.2010. AGAIN ON 24.1 2.2010 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 7.2.2012 AND THEN TO 22.02.2012. ON 23 .03.2012, SH. ASHWANI MITTAL AGAINST REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 16.05.2012. AGAIN CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 5.7.2012 AN D THEN TO 1.08.21012 AS BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION. ON 21.09.2012 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 28.12.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. AGAIN O N 28.12.2012 THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 22.03.2012 AT THE REQUEST OF ASSESSEE; S COUNSEL. ON 22.03.2013 AGAIN THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 14.6.2013 BEING THE LAST OPPORTUNITY AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. TODAY I.E. 14.06.2013, TH E ASSESSEE HAS AGAIN FAILED TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS. FROM THE ABOVE IT IS EV IDENT THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO PURSUE THE MATTER DESPITE NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 3. THE LD. DR MR. TARSEM LAL SUBMITTED THAT THE MIS C. APPLICATION OF THE ASSESSEE MAY BE DISMISSED, AS THE ASSESSEE IS N OT INTERESTED TO REPRESENT THE CASE. 3 4. AFTER HEARING THE LD. DR, WE ARE OF THE CONSIDER ED VIEW THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED TO REPRESENT THE CASE IN SPITE OF NUMBER OF OPPORTUNITIES AFFORDED. ACCORDINGLY, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE. 5. IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE MISC. APPLICATIONS OF T HE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED.5665865 ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 14TH JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 14TH JUNE, 2013 /SKR/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE:M/S. BROADWAYS OVERSEAS LTD. JALANDHAR . 2. THE ADDL. CIT, R-I, JALANDHAR. 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.