IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL SMC BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 818/CHD/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2007-08 M/S HANSA ELECTRICALS, VS THE ITO, MILLER GANG, G.T.ROAD, WARD V(2), LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAAFH3457J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 26.07.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 26.07.2016 O R D E R THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-2, LUDHIANA DATED 11.03.2 016 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2007-08. 2. NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE DESPITE NOTIFYING THE DATE OF HEARING. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT A SSESSEE IS NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. IT MAY ALSO BE NOTED HERE THAT NOBODY APPEARED BEFORE LD. CIT(APPEALS) O N BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE TO ARGUE THE APPEAL. 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 PAGES 47 7 & 478] WHEREIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD THAT: 2 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 APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE FOR NON-PROSECUTION. 6. IN THE RESULT, APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISS ED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 26 TH JULY,2016. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH