IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 379/CHD/2013 (UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) M/S MAA SHARNAM, V THE CIT-I, 34, SECTOR 4, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: AACTM1123E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT. JYOTI KUMARI DATE OF HEARING : 31.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 31.03.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I CHANDIGARH DATED 2 6.02.2013 UNDER SECTION 80G(5)(VI) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED THE DATE OF HEARI NG THROUGH REGISTERED POST. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTING 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 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 ON 31 ST MARCH,2015. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 31 ST MARCH,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH