IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH,CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS.RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 366/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 SINGH CONSTRUCTION CO., VS THE CIT, 4028, URBAN ESTATE, PATIALA. PHASE II, PATIALA. PAN: AAWFS4870Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANOJ MISHRA,CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT, PATIALA DATED 10.03.2014 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2009-10 UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. NONE PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TI ME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS, THEREFORE, 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. BHATTACHA RGEE 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. 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-PR OSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNE SH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 5 TH JAN., 2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT/CHD