IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NOS. 307&308/CHD/2016 A.Y.: 2005-06 & 2006-07 SHRI TEJBIR SINGH, VS THE ITO, C/O SUPER GOLDEN (INDIA), WARD 4(2), NIRANKAR ST.NO. 5, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AATPM1222B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 23.05.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.05.2016 O R D E R BOTH THE APPEALS BY ASSESSEE ARE DIRECTED AGAINST D IFFERENT ORDERS OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 24.02. 2016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEARS 2005-06 AND 2006-07. 2. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, THE APPEAL WAS ADJO URNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE FOR 23.05.2016. HOWEVE R, ON THE DATE OF HEARING, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASS ESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERES TED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEALS AND THE APPEALS FILED BY TH E 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 PAGE S 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, BOTH THE APPEALS OF THE ASSESSEE ARE DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 23 RD MAY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH