IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 1448 & 1449/CHD/2016 A.YS: 2011-12 & 2012-13 M/S PUNJAB AGRO INDS. VS THE DCIT, CORPORATION LTD., WARD 4(1), PLOT NO. 2A, SECTOR 28A, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AAACP9905G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 29.05.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 29.05.2017 O R D E R BOTH THE APPEALS OF ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST T HE COMMON ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, GURGAON DATED 2 7.10.2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2011-12 AND 2012-13. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE T IME OF HEARING OF THE APPEALS DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE O F HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THA T ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND T HE APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE 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 ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] 2 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 APPEALS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMI SSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 29 TH MAY,2017. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH