IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI BHAVNESH SAINI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND MS. RANO JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 986/CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008-09 M/S LUDHIANA STOCK EXCHANGE LTD., VS THE DCIT, FEROZE GANDHI MARKET, CIRCLE VII. LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAACT5495M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI S.K.MITTAL DATE OF HEARING : 27.08.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.08.2015 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI,JM THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORD ER OF LD. CIT(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DATED 02.09.2014 FOR ASSE SSMENT YEAR 2008-09. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INTIMATED THAT APPEAL IS T IME BARRED BY THREE DAYS. HOWEVER, NO STEPS HAVE BEEN TAKEN. THEREAFTER ALSO, ASSESSEE WAS NOTIFIED OF THE DATE OF HEARING. HOWEVER, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE DATE OF HEARING. IT, THEREFORE, APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE I S NO MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL I S THEREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED UN-ADMITTED. 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 27 TH AUGUST,2015. SD/- SD/- (RANO JAIN) (BHAVNESH SAI NI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH AUGUST,2015. POONAM COPY TO: THE APPELLANT, THE RESPONDENT, THE CIT(A), THE CIT, DR ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT CHANDIGARH