IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                     (DELHI BENCH `H' NEW DELHI)

                BEFORE SHRI A.D. JAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                  AND
                SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                         I.T.A. No.164/Del/2012
                       Assessment year : 2003-04

              Winsome Laboratories Ltd.,             ITO,
              C/o C-2/42, Janakpuri,                 Ward-18 (3),
              New Delhi.                       V.    New Delhi.

                  (Appellant)                  (Respondent)

                           /GIR/No.AAACW-
                                   AAACW-0771-
                       PAN /GIR/No.AAACW 0771-D

                   Appellant by : None.
                   Respondent by : Shri Tarun Seem, Sr. DR.

                                    ORDER







PER TS KAPOOR, AM:

This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld CIT(A)
dated 31.10.2011.      The case was originally fixed for hearing on
14.3.2012 on which date the Bench did not function and hearing was
adjourned to 21.5.2012 on which date also the Bench did not function
and hearing was adjourned to 21.11.2012 and on which date Ld AR
appeared and case was fixed for today i.e. 11.2.2013. The date was
duly noted by the Ld AR but neither any application for adjournment
was filed nor any body appeared on behalf of the assessee. It appears
that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence
the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non
prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following
decisions:-
                                       2                    ITA No...../Del/


        1. In the case of CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR
        461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have
        held that "The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but
        effectively of pursuing it."
        2. In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker v. CWT 223 IR
        480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of
        assessee in default made following observations in their order:
        "if the party at whose instance the reference is made, fails to
        appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of
        the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this
        court is not bound to answer the reference.
        3. In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.)
        The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was
        fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented
        the revenue/applicant, nor any communication for adjournment
        was received. There was no communication or information as to
        why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal
        on the basis of inherent power treated the appeal filed by the
        revenue as un-admitted in view of Rule 19 of the Appellate
        Tribunal Rules, 1963.







Therefore, keeping in view the above, the appeal filed by the assessee
is dismissed for non prosecution.
3.      Order pronounced in the open court on 11th day of February,
2013.


     Sd/-                                                 Sd/-
 (A.D. JAIN)                                      (T.S. KAPOOR)
JUDICIAL MEMBER                               ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dt. 11.2.2013.
HMS
                                 3                 ITA No...../Del/



Copy forwarded to:-
   1. The appellant
   2. The respondent
   3. The CIT
   4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
   5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
True copy.
                                                   By Order


                                                  (ITAT, New Delhi).


Date of hearing                             11.2.2013

Date of Dictation                           11.2.2013

Date of Typing                              11.2.2013

Date of order signed by                     11.2.2013
both the Members &
pronouncement.

Date of order uploaded on net               11.2.2013
& sent to the Bench concerned.