1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCHES, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 218/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10. M/S DYNAMIC FINVEST SERVICES (P) LTD., VS. THE DCIT , CENTRAL CIRCLE-1, NEW DELHI CHANDIGARH PAN NO. AAACD3347E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. SUSHIL KUMAR, CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.09.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.09.2016 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM THE PRESENT APPEAL HAS BEEN PREFERRED BY THE ASSESS EE AGAINST THE ORDER OF PRINCIPAL CIT(OSD), GURGAON DATED 13.03.2015 RELATI NG TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL DESPITE SERVICE OF NOTICE AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN 10 OF FORM NO. 36. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSES SEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE INSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED. 3. IN OUR ABOVE VIEW, WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE DECI SION OF THE APEX COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT V. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE AND ANOTHER, REPORTED IN 118 ITR 46L [RELEVANT PAGES 477 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: 2 THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. 4. OUR VIEW FURTHER FINDS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWIN G 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], WE DISMISS THE INSTANT 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 ON 15 TH SEPT. 2016. SD/- SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) (OM PRAKASH KANT) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 15 TH SEPTEMBER, 2016 RKK COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR 3