What is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another authority for?

Appealing a tax assessment requires more than just filing the appeal; it involves actively pursuing it. The assessee must effectively engage with the appellate process.

How many judgments cite CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another?

1,656 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461), spanning 2012 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 147, Section 148, Section 250, Section 144, Section 143(3), Section 142(1).

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another (118 ITR 461)

Bhoppana Prasad Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are

ITA 165/RPR/2026[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164, 165, 166, 167/Rpr/2026 And

For Respondent: None (Petition filed)

…pellant to any of the recent notices issued. It is clearly evident that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 118 ITR 461 held that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 dated 17.09.2010 held that in cases where assesses do not want to pursue the appeal court/tribunal had inherent power to dismiss the appeal for wan…

Bhoppana Prasad Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 164/RPR/2026[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur17 Mar 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhuryआयकर अपील सं./Ita Nos.164, 165, 166, 167/Rpr/2026 & Ita Nos.170 & 171/Rpr/2026 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13 Boppana Prasad Rao 7-5-99, Flat No.14, Punarvasu Apartments, Pandurangapuram, Visakhapatnam-530 003 (A.P) Pan : Adcpb4083D

For Appellant: None (Petition filed)For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

…pellant to any of the recent notices issued. It is clearly evident that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In this regard, it is pertinent to note that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of C.I.T. v. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. (1979) 118 ITR 461 held that appeal does not mean only filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s. Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No. 62 of 2009 dated 17.09.2010 held that in cases where assesses do not want to pursue the appeal court/tribunal had inherent power to dismiss the appeal for wan…

Opg Sons Properties Pvt. Ltd., Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 256/LKW/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Sh. Rakesh Garg, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Kumar, DR

Section 115BSection 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…se to the final notice that was issued. Accordingly, the ld. CIT(A) held that the assessee was not interested in pursuing the appeals and by placing reliance on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Ors (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 4. The assessee is aggrieved with this summary dismissal of his appeal and has accordingly come in appeal be…

Nitin Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 7991/MUM/2025[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethnitin Gupta Vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4) 47/47, Balkrishna Niwas, Piramal Chamber, 2Nd Panjarapole Lane, Mumbai - 4000011 Mumbai – 400011. Pan/Gir No: Aafpg6744C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Ms. Khushali Desai Respondent By Shri V. Vinod Kumar (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 26.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250

…no response from the appellant. Therefore, the CIT(A) was of the view that the appellant is not interested in providing any details and is also not interested in perusing the appeal. He referred to the decisions in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal no. 62 of 2009 (Bombay HC) and dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2 Nitin Gupta 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed appeal before the Tribunal. The Ld. AR of the appellant submitted that the CIT(A) has passed an ex- parte order in violation of the principles of natu…

Vikas Bansal, Ajmer vs. Circle 17(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5861/MUM/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai27 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethvikas Bansal Vs. Circle 17(1) Plot No. 1693, Thakur 202, Kautilya Bhawan, G Block, Colony, Ram Nagar, Ajmer, Bandra Kurla Complex Rajasthan – 305001. Mumbai - 4000051 Pan/Gir No: Ahqpb6553J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Shri Akhtar Hussain Ansari, (Sr. Dr) Date Of Hearing 23.02.2026 Date Of Pronouncement 27.02.2026 O R D E R Per Bijyananda Pruseth, Am:

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 69Section 69C

…proceeding before it when the party who has moved it has not appeared nor cared to remain present. The dismissal, therefore, is an inherent power which every Tribunal possesses. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of CIT(A) vs B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) held has also decided on similar line where the appellant did not effectively peruse the appeal. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution by the appellant. 6. Be that as it may, the CIT(A) has confirmed the addition made by the AO by passing a speaking and logical order after considering the facts of the case a…

Unteswar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 377/GTY/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…ent and there was no assistance from the assessee. ITA No(s). 375, 376 & 377/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Unteshwar Singh/ Unteswar Singh. 1. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. In the judgment, their Lordships averred as follows: “..................This turns on the meaning of the words "preferred an appeal". "Preferred" is a word of dual import. Its semantics depend on the scheme and the context; its im…

Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 376/GTY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…ent and there was no assistance from the assessee. ITA No(s). 375, 376 & 377/GTY/2025 Assessment Year(s) 2013-14, 2017-18 & 2018-19 Unteshwar Singh/ Unteswar Singh. 1. Their Lordships of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. In the judgment, their Lordships averred as follows: “..................This turns on the meaning of the words "preferred an appeal". "Preferred" is a word of dual import. Its semantics depend on the scheme and the context; its im…

Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christianbasti

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are partly

ITA 375/GTY/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati26 Feb 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Sonjoy Sarma & Shri Rakesh Mishra

Section 127Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 148Section 250

…New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. 1. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattacharjee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. In the judgment, their Lordships averred as follows: ".........This turns on the meaning of the words "preferred an appeal". "Preferred" is a word of dual import. Its semantics depend on the scheme and the context; its import must…

Anant Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Barabanki

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 499/LKW/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow26 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: SH. SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. NIKHIL CHOUDHARY (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. R.R.N. Shukla, Addl CIT DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…Kumar A.Y. 2017-18 pursuing the present appeal as he had not furnished any written submission in support of his grounds. In the circumstances, after relying upon decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and Ors (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC), the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs Commissioner Of Wealth-Tax (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP) and the decision of the ITAT in M/s Chabra Land and Housing Limited (1025/1027/CHD/2025), he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of pursuit. 4. Aggrieved with this order, the assessee filed an…

Bharti Nehru Kariya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7104/MUM/2025[2020-2021]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Feb 2026AY 2020-2021

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Ms. Kavitha Rajagopal () Assessment Year: 2020-21

For Respondent: Manisha Ghind (Virtually appeared)

Section 69A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “B” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND MS. KAVITHA RAJAGOPAL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2020-21 Bharti Nehru Kariya, ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Flat No. C101, Shree Pati Piramal Chamber, Vs. Annexe 2, Gowalaia Tank Mumbai-400012. Tardeo, Mumbai-400036. PAN NO. ALNPK 7260 Q Appellant Respondent : Manisha Ghind (Virtually appeared) Assessee by Revenue by : Mr. Swapnil Choudhari, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 12/02/2026 Date of pronouncement : 23/02/2026 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal by the assessee is directed against order dated…

Bharat Kumar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 8785/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai18 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Rahul Chaudhary & Shri Bijayananda Prusethbharat Kumar Choudhary, Vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Avenue 3, Shop No-12, Jai Santoshi Mata Near Videsh Bhavan, G Block Bkc. Gilban Nagar. Gulmohar Road No-5. Area, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Vileparle West. Mumbai- Mumbai-400051. 400049. Pan/Gir No: Cfwpk1543K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250Section 271ASection 69ASection 69a

…ices u/s 250 of the Act fixing the hearings on 02.02.2021, 03.11.2021, 13.06.2025 and 17.09.2025. There was no response to any of the above notices. Therefore, relying above the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 and M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009, the CIT(A) observed that the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal. On merit, he upheld the addition by stating that the appellant has not given satisfactory explanation about the cash deposit during the demonetization period. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the asses…

Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara, Gujarat

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes subject to payment of cost

ITA 2653/AHD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal & Shri Narendra Prasad Sinha

For Appellant: Respondent by: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Shri Rignesh Das, CIT-DR

Section 115BSection 143(3)Section 144BSection 234BSection 234CSection 271ASection 54FSection 69A

…ision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480), the Punjab & Haryana High Court in New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (296 ITR 495) and the judgment of the Supreme Court of India in CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461), observed that filing of an appeal alone is not sufficient and the appellant must effectively pursue the same. At the same time, the CIT(Appeals) noted that the appeal had to be Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada vs. ITO Asst. Year –2020-21 - 5– decided on the basis of material available on record. Considering the failure of the assessee to furnish an…

Panchwadkar Shrihari Purshottam HUF, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2928/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2928/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Panchwadkar Shrihari Vs. Income Tax Officer, Purshottam Huf, Ward-2, Pandharpur 2085, Ashirvad Haridas Ves Pandharpur, Solapur – 413304 Maharashtra Pan : Aalhp4822N Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

…erred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but however failed to appear on the given dates of hearing and ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee observing as under : “4.2 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Another (118 ITR 461) that appeal does not mean merely filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the appellant does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution as held by the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal N…

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6480/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwalm/S Ak Landcon Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Cc-28 2Nd Floor, E-2, Ara H. No. 471, Pkt A, Jj Colony, Phase-Ii, Centre, Jhandewalan Madanpur Khadar, Extension, Delhi – 110044 New Delhi – 110055 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Aahca2581N Appellant .. Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR

Section 153CSection 153DSection 65B

…ned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention cont…

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6479/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 65B

…ned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention cont…

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6478/DEL/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 65B

…ned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention cont…

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6477/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 65B

…ned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention cont…

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6476/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 65B

…ned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention cont…

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

The appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6475/DEL/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Manish Agarwal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Jitender Singh, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 153DSection 65B

…ned order passed by ld. First Appellate Authority indicates that due failure of assessee to appear in response to as many as 10 notices issued the ld. First Appellate Authority, relying decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC), ld.CIT(A) has proceeded ex-parte and though issue on merits have been touched but the same have not been considered as ld. First Appellate Authority has observed that during appellate proceedings, the appellant has also not complied and has been evasive and furnished no details and corroborative evidence in support of its contention cont…

Sagar Developers, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 3, Pune

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2657/PUN/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2657/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2015-16 Sagar Developers, Vs. Acit, Circle-3, Pune. S. No.27/22, Puneet Yash Arcade Dhanukar Colony, Kothrud, Pune- 411038. Pan : Aasfs3658Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri H. G. Sharma Revenue By : Shri M. M. Chate Date Of Hearing : 23.12.2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 10.02.2026 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 17.09.2025 Passed U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By Ld. Cit(A), Delhi-31 [‘Ld. Cit(A)’] For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “On The Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & In Law- 1. The Ld. Cit (A) Erred In Confirming The Order Of Acit, Circle-3, Pune To The Extent Of Levy Of Penalty U/S 272(1)(C) Amounting To Rs. 3,45,81,680/- Being Income Offered During The Course Of Survey & Shown In Itr Filed Post The Survey Proceedings.

For Appellant: Shri H. G. SharmaFor Respondent: Shri M. M. Chate

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 272(1)(c)

…ee preferred an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). 3 Since according to Ld. CIT(A) the assessee remained absent on six different dates of hearing, the appeal was dismissed by applying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Bhattacharjee & Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC). 5. It is the above order against which the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. We have heard Ld. Counsels from both the sides and perused the material available on record including the paper book and written submission furnished by the assessee. In this regard, we find that the Assessing Officer levied penalty of Rs.3,45,81,680/-…

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

What is CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another authority for?

Also referred to as

Sections most often in play

Issues it is cited on

Judgments citing CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

Bhoppana Prasad Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

Bhoppana Prasad Rao, Visakhapatnam vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), Bhilai

Opg Sons Properties Pvt. Ltd., Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

Nitin Gupta, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 19(2)(4), Mumbai

Vikas Bansal, Ajmer vs. Circle 17(1), Mumbai

Unteswar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Assam

Unteswar Singh, Nongpoh vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati

Unteshwar Singh, Meghalaya vs. Central Circle-2, Guwahati, Aayakar Bhawan, Christianbasti

Anant Kumar, Barabanki vs. Income Tax Officer, Barabanki

Bharti Nehru Kariya, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 19(1)(1), Mumbai

Bharat Kumar Choudhary, Mumbai vs. Assessing Officer 41 (3) (2), Kautilya Bhavan, Mumbai

Vimarsh Prakashbhai Vasavada, Vadodara, Gujarat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(2)(2), Vadodara, Gujarat

Panchwadkar Shrihari Purshottam HUF, Solapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 2, Pandharpur

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle 28, Delhi

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

M/S A K Landcon Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-28, Delhi

Sagar Developers, Pune vs. ACIT Circle 3, Pune