2011 (12) TMI 790

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... ment year 2007-08 contending that the CIT(A) erred in confirming an addition of Rs. 12077814.00 as unexplained credit u/s 68 of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. At the time of hearing of the appeal, neither the assessee nor any of his authorized representative were present, although, the last notice for hearing the appeal on 11.08.2011 was sent at the address given by the assessee in form no. 36. The same h .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

..... the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference. 3. Similar view has been taken by ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P).) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. Respectfully following the above precedents, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. However, it is clarified that if assessee later on explains the reasons for non-ap .....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

→ Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X