VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT(A), Jaipur dated 26.02.2018 for the Assessment Year 2007-08.

2. The matter has been adjourned on number of occasions at the request of the assessee in the past and the matter has again come up for hearing for the above scheduled date of hearing. None has ITA No. 459/JP/2018 Smt. Munni Devi Pareek vs. ITO 2 appeared on behalf of the assessee nor was any adjournment application filed inspite of noting the scheduled date of hearing. It is thus apparent that the assessee is not interested in pursuing prosecution of the present appeal. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgment of the Honble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 , the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.

3. Before parting, it is appropriate to state that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing its appeal filed, then it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order by moving an appropriate application stating the explicit reasons for non-appearance and by giving an undertaking that it shall not abuse the time of the Tribunal. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 02/11/2018. Sd/- Sd/- fot; iky jko foe flag ;kno (Vijay Pal Rao) (Vikram Singh Yadav) U;kf;d lnL;@Judicial Member ys[kk lnL;@Accountant Member Tk;iqj@Jaipur fnukad@Dated:-02/11/2018. *Santosh ITA No. 459/JP/2018 Smt. Munni Devi Pareek vs. ITO 3 vknsk dh izfrfyfi vxzsfkr@Copy of the order forwarded to:

1. vihykFkhZ@The Appellant- Smt. Munni Devi Pareek, Sikar.

2. izR;FkhZ@ The Respondent- ITO, Ward- 3, Sikar.

3. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT

4. vk;dj vk;qDr@ CIT(A)

5. foHkkxh; izfrfuf/k] vk;dj vihyh; vf/kdj.k] t;iqj@DR, ITAT, Jaipur.

6. xkMZ QkbZy@ Guard File { ITA No. 459/JP/2018} vknskkuqlkj@ By order, lgk;d iathdkj@Asst. Registrar