IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 618/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SHRI JAIVEER SINGH SANDHU, VS THE ITO 49, MODEL GRAM, WARD V(2), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: BPOPS0340K (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH,DR DATE OF HEARING : 04.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 04.07.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 03.03.2 016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN NOTIFIED OF THE DATE OF HE ARING FIXED ON 04.07.2016 THROUGH REGISTERED POST. DESPITE NOT IFYING THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST, NONE APPEA RED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. IT THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL AND THE I NSTANT APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DISMIS SED. 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. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 4 TH JULY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH