CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya & Another

118 ITR 461Supreme Court of India1997#19 most cited

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.

1,656

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,344 Indian tax judgments — from 2012 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharya · 118 ITR 461 · appeal · pursuing appeal · effectively pursuing appeal · filing appeal · assistance from assessee · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · section 250(6)

Sections most often in play

Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 144Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 250(6)speaking ordersection 25opportunity of being heardsection 250condonation of delaysection 69aappeal before the tribunalsection 142(1)section 144section 148section 147

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

M/S Phoenix Devcons Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT4 (1), Indore

ITA 281/IND/2021[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…ot filed any information with this office. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. This view is supported by many judicial pronouncements which are as under: i. CIT vs. B.No. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 ii. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 iii. CIT vs. Multiplan India ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2.2 However, in the interest of natural justice, I have gone through the assessment order and grounds of appeal. After taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds of appeal at Sr. No. 1 to 9 of groun…

M/S Phoenix Devcons Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT4 (1), Indore

ITA 280/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…ot filed any information with this office. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. This view is supported by many judicial pronouncements which are as under: i. CIT vs. B.No. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 ii. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 iii. CIT vs. Multiplan India ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2.2 However, in the interest of natural justice, I have gone through the assessment order and grounds of appeal. After taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds of appeal at Sr. No. 1 to 9 of groun…

M/S Phoenix Devcons Pvt. Ltd., Indore vs. The ACIT4 (1), Indore

ITA 279/IND/2021[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 Aug 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Ms. Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri B.M. Biyani(Conducted Through Virtual Court)

Section 143(3)Section 254Section 271(1)(c)

…ot filed any information with this office. In view of these facts, I am of the considered view that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. This view is supported by many judicial pronouncements which are as under: i. CIT vs. B.No. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 ii. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 iii. CIT vs. Multiplan India ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2.2 However, in the interest of natural justice, I have gone through the assessment order and grounds of appeal. After taking into account the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, grounds of appeal at Sr. No. 1 to 9 of groun…

Amol Omprakash Porwal, Mumbai vs. ITO WD 26(1) (1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 388/MUM/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Aug 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kuldip Singh () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Amol Omprakash Porwal, Ito Ward 26(1)(1), 1901, Richmond Tower, Cliff Kautilya Bhavan, Bandra Kurla Avenue, Near Hiranandani Vs. Complex, Gardens Powai, Mumbai-400051. Mumbai-400076. Pan No. Arupp 0066 A Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Mr. Anand Mundra Revenue By : Mr. Manoj Sinha, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/08/2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 26/08/2022

For Appellant: Mr. Anand MundraFor Respondent: Mr. Manoj Sinha, DR
Section 10(38)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…taken in appeal. 5.1 Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5.1 Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in 5.1 Reference is made to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), in which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of which the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of persuasion of appeal has stated that "Preferri…

Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 30(2)(6), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statisti...

ITA 918/MUM/2020[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jul 2022AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Sandeep Singh Karhail () Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Income Tax Officer 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Ward 30(2)(6), Deep Narayan Dube Road, Vs. Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Kautilya Bhavan, Bkc, Mumbai-400068. Mumbai-400051. Pan No. Aizpp 6142 M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Dipen Tanna, ARFor Respondent: Mrs. Smita Nair, DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “SMC” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI OM PRAKASH KANT (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI SANDEEP SINGH KARHAIL (JUDICIAL MEMBER) Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mrs. Sheetal Gokul Parikh, Income Tax Officer 33, Ghanshyam Dube Chawl No. 2, Ward 30(2)(6), Deep Narayan Dube Road, Vs. Earlier Ward 24(2)(2), Pragatinagar, Dahisar (E), Kautilya Bhavan, BKC, Mumbai-400068. Mumbai-400051. PAN No. AIZPP 6142 M Appellant Respondent Assessee by : Mr. Dipen Tanna, AR Revenue by : Mrs. Smita Nair, DR Date of Hearing : 21/06/2022 Date of pronouncement : 05/07/2022 ORDER PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This a…

J.S. Finvest(P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-13(1), New Delhi

ITA 9423/DEL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Sh. Yogesh Kumar Usassessment Year: 2016-17 J. S. Finvest (P) Ltd. Ito 724-B, Plot No.3, Jaina Vs Ward- 13 (1) Tower-1, District Centre, New Delhi Janakpuri, West Delhi, New Delhi Pan No.Aabcj4125H (Appellan (Respondent)

Section 68

…disputably the aforesaid sum was not received during the year under consideration. 3. A perusal of the order of the CIT(A) show that the CIT(A) is heavily influenced by the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B. N. Bhattacharjee and Another 118 ITR 461. We further find that the CIT(A) has also followed the decision of the Hon’ble M. P. High Court 223 ITR 480 and without going much on the merits of the case dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. In our considered view the CIT(A) ought to have given sufficient opportunity of being heard to the assessee and should have verified whether the…

Inch Automation Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. DCIT Circle-2(1), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 116/DEL/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2022AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Yogesh Kumar U.S

For Appellant: Shri Amrin Pathan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Anupama Singla, Sr. DR
Section 234BSection 68

…,94,800/- 7. The assessee carried the matter before the ld. CIT(A) but for some reason, could not attend the proceedings before the appellate authority. 8. Referring to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee and Others 118 ITR 461, the ld. CIT(A) observed that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal and went on to confirm the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 9. Before us, the ld. counsel for the assessee vehemently stated that the assessee has furnished all necessary evidences in support of genuineness of transaction. It is the say of the ld. counsel…

M/S Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. DCIT, Cir-11(1) Kolkata, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is allowed

ITA 2656/KOL/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Girish Agrawal]

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 43B

…1 M/s. Kolkata West International City Pvt. Ltd., AY 2009-10 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Shri Sanjay Garg, Judicial Member & Shri Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 2656/Kol/2019 Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/s. Kolkata West International City Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, Pvt. Ltd. (PAN: AACCK4887A) Circle-11(1), Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 28.03.2022 Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2022 For the Appellant Shri Punit Agarwal & Sm. Khushaboo Rai For the Respondent Smt. Ranu Biswas, Addl. CIT, DR ORDER Per Girish Agrawal, Accountant Member: This…

Aradhana Tewari, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle- 13, New Delhi

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 39/DEL/2020[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Apr 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat

Section 132Section 144Section 153ASection 250(6)Section 80C

…ate the points for determination, the decision thereon and also the reasons for the decision. While deciding the appeals, CIT(A) has no power to dismiss the appeal for non prosecution by relying on the ratio/s laid down in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya 85 Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) and Late Tukoji Rao Holker vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). In these facts and circumstances, where the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal by applying the above said ratios, the order of the learned CIT(A) suffers from infirmity. The CIT(A) while deciding the issue on merits have also to provide reasons for coming to the conclusion and in the into the…

Ruchi Mahila Mandal, Chhatarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chhatarpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 139DSection 147Section 148(1)Section 194CSection 271BSection 44A

…e, vide para 7 of the order, the ld. CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assesse for non-prosecution of the appeal filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) referred the following case laws in dismissing the assessee’s appeal: (i) CIT v. B N Bhattacharjee & Ors., 118 ITR 461 (ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) (iii) CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2.7 Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 We are not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A) about the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of non-…

Gtv Tech Sez P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

ITA 273/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.273 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

Section 144Section 148

…al/argument has been brought on record by the appellant against the order of the AO and in support of the grounds taken in appeal. Reference is made to the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court GTV Tech Sez P. Ltd. 5 in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), in which the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that- “Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it”. The Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. As reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non- prosecution of a…

Sri Tarakeswar Pandey, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1756/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

…ee, no one has bothered to represent on behalf of assessee before this Tribunal. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the ass…

Mukesh Kumar Singh, Howrah vs. ITO Ward- 46(2)/Kol, Kolkata

In the result, the captioned appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 925/KOL/2017[2007-8]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Feb 2022

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rajesh Kumar[Virtual Court Hearing] Assessment Year: 2007-08 Mukesh Kumar Singh Ito Ward – 46(2), Kolkata 16, Hat Lane, Near Mullick Vs. Fatak, Howrah – 711 101. Pan: Anops 0474 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Present For: Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri Biswanath Das, Acit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2022 Date Of Pronouncement : 09.02.2022 O R D E R Per Sanjay Garg: This Appeal Preferred By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-14, Kolkata Dated 30.01.2016 For The A.Y. 2007-08. 2. That This Appeal Is Pending For Quite Considerable Time & On 03.06.2019 When This Tribunal Called The Matter For Hearing, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Counsel Appeared & The Case Was Dismissed For Non-Appearance.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Biswanath Das, ACIT, DR
Section 147Section 183Section 69A

…y application for such non-appearance by the party or their Counsel. So, it gives an impression that the assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. 3. However in the interest of justice, we proceed to decide the appeal on merits of the case after considering the material on record and after hearing the ld. DR. 4. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal: “i. T…

M/S. Expansion Infracon Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer-8(3)(4), Mumbai

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

ITA 870/MUM/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman, Hon'Blem/S. Expansion Infracon Pvt. Ltd., V. Income Tax Officer – 8(3)(4) 53-Business, 2Nd Floor Income Tax Office Bhageshwar Bhuvan, Plot No. 197B Aayakar Bhavan, Mumbai Dilip Gupte Road, Shivaji Park Mahim, Mumbai - 400016 Pan: Aaacy3439Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri B.K. Bagchi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.K. Bagchi

…fracon Pvt. Ltd., 2. At the time of hearing it is brought to our notice that assessee has not represented the case before the Ld.CIT(A) and Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee relying on the decision in the case of B.N.Bhattarcharji and Anr. [118 ITR 461] and disposed the appeal on the basis of the material available on record. We observed that Ld.CIT(A) has not dealt the issue on merits due to non-prosecution and proper material before him. 3. After considering the submissions of both the parties in our considered view the assessee has not represented the case properly before the Ld.CIT(A) and…

Manoj Kumar, Sirsa vs. ITO, W-2, Sirsa

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

ITA 1588/CHANDI/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh19 Jan 2022AY 2016-17
For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Arvind Sudershan, JCIT
Section 250

…ssed by the First Appellate Authority relying upon the position of law as set out in CIT Vs Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITD (Del) 320; late Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (Madhya Pradesh- Indore Bench) and CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another 118 ITR 461 (SC). The said procedure adopted, we note is contrary to the statutory provisions. Thus, we note that even otherwise, the impugned order is contrary to the statutory remit of the Income Tax Act. Section 250 sub-section (6) of the Income Tax Act requires that “the order of the Deputy Commissioner (Appeals)] or, as the case may be, the Commiss…

Vikas Oil Products, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 28/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 1TR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as, once the assessment proceedings are set in…

Om Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur, Jiapur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 27/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 1TR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as, once the assessment proceedings are set in…

Jr Industries, Dausa vs. PCIT-1, Jaipur

In the result, this appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 26/JPR/2021[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Nov 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain, Jm & Shri Vikram Singh Yadav, Am

For Appellant: Shri Rajiv Sogani (CA)For Respondent: Shri B.K. Gupta (Pr.CIT-DR)
Section 147Section 148Section 263

…he can do what the ITO can do and also direct him to do what he failed to do. In this context, useful reference may also be made to Apex Court's decisions in the cases of CIT vs. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria 66 1TR 443 and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee 118 ITR 461 (SC) for the proposition that an assessee having once filed an appeal, cannot withdraw it and even if the assessee refuses to appear at the hearing, the first appellate authority can proceed with the enquiry and if he finds that there has been an under-assessment, he can enhance the assessment. Just as, once the assessment proceedings are set in…

Rakesh Kumar Tehlan, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 43(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6598/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Oct 2021AY 2013-14
Section 250

…, after making few attempts the Ld. Commissioner it was submitted was justified in holding that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Hence, dismissing the same relying upon the position of law as held in CIT Vs. B.N. Bhatacharya & Others, 118 ITR 461 and Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) it was submitted that the addition made in the assessment order were confirmed. 4. I have heard the submissions and perused the material available on record. On a consideration of the statutory requirements, I am of the view that the impugned order in violation of the statutory remit…

Arumuga Nainar, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward-1(1), Chennai

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

ITA 254/CHNY/2020[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 Oct 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal

For Appellant: Shri N.V. Balaji, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT
Section 143(3)

…e order of CIT(A) dated 25.10.2019 for the assessment year 2015-16 and stated that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution, following the decisions of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and another, 118 ITR 461 and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). The ld. counsel for the assessee stated that the CIT(A) is a quasi judicial authority and in the statute of Income Tax Act, CIT(A) cannot dismiss the appeal for default expressly or by inevitable implication, but the appellate authorit…