IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1141/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S R.K. SOAP & OIL TRADERS, VS THE ITO, OLD BUS STAND, TAPA, BARNALA. DISTT. BARNALA (PUNJAB). PAN: AAIFR8957R (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL,DR DATE OF HEARING : 16.01.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 16.01.2017 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), MEERUT CAMP AT PATIALA D ATED 10.08.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS ADJO URNED ON THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE FOR 16. 01.2017. HOWEVER, ON THIS DATE, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF T HE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INT ERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN MY ABOVE VIEW, I GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECISI ON OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND 2 ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 47 7 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. MY VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS ALSO: I) CIT V. MULTIPLAN INDIA (P) LTD: 38 ITD 320 (DE L) II) ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR V. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 5. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISIONS [SUPRA], I DISMISS THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 16 TH JANUARY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH