IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. ANNAPURNA GUPTA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 725/CHD/2015 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10 M/S AKSHAJ INFRA PVT.LTD., VS THE DCIT, HOUSE NO. 451, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1, FIRST FLOOR, BLOCK NO. 29, CHANDIGARH. TRILOK PURI, DELHI 110 091. PAN: AADCK1301N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SUSHIL KUMAR,CIT-DR DATE OF HEARING : 17.10.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 17.10.2016 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS), GURGAON DATED 18.02.2015 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10 2. THE RECORD REVEALED THAT ASSESSEE HAS BEEN SERVE D OF THE NOTICE FOR DATE OF HEARING FIXED TODAY. HOWEVER, N ONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL. THE RECORD ALSO REVEALED THAT EARLIER THE APPEAL WA S ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE. IT, THEREFORE, APP EARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE A PPEAL AND THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS LIABLE TO BE DI SMISSED. 2 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 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 APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTIO N. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (ANNAPURNA GUPTA) (BHAVNES H SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 17 TH OCTOBER,2016. POONAM COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT,DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH