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 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 367,368 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 147 Section 148 Section 250 Section 144 Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 250(6)Section 144B

Issues it is cited on

section 250(6)speaking order section 25 opportunity of being heard section 250 condonation of delay section 69a appeal before the tribunal section 142(1)section 144 section 148 section 147

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

Kansi Technovation Pvt Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ITO Ward - 2(3), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1492/DEL/2020[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2016-17]

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

…ir rights" is applicable in this case. 4.3. Hon'ble ITAT in ITA No. 1025- 1027/Chandigarh/2005 for the AY 2002-03 in the case of M/s Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd., after following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattachargee & other 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean merely filling of the appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 4.4. Keeping in view the aforesaid factual position, the appeal filed by the appellant is therefore decided on merits, as discussed hereunder:” 8. A perusal of the above shows that no notice whatsoever was sent by the office of the Ld. CIT(A)…

Neo Vehicleaids Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2100/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/S Neo Vehicleaids Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-18(1), D-48, Sector-63, Nodia- C.R. Building, 201301, U.P. New Delhi-110092 Pan-Aadcn7327H Assessee Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH, ‘SMC’: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/s Neo Vehicleaids Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-18(1), D-48, Sector-63, Nodia- C.R. Building, 201301, U.P. New Delhi-110092 PAN-AADCN7327H Assessee Revenue Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. R. K. Gupta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 11.10.2021 Date of Pronouncement 11.10.2021 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the ex-parte order dated 31.01.2019 of the learned CIT(A)-37, New Delhi, relating to Assessment Year 2014-15…

Ajay Dynanoba Tingre, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

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

ITA 536/PUN/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Sept 2021AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Shri Mahaveer AtalFor Respondent: Shri S. P. Walimbe

Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…ne placing reliance on the following decisions :- (i) M/s. Chemipol vs. Union of India & Ors., Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 dt. 17.09.2009 (Bom.); (ii) CIT vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); (iii) CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 (SC). 4. Being aggrieved by the decision of the ld. CIT(A), the appellant is before us in the present appeal. 5. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. On perusal of the impugned order, it is evident that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal in limine for non-prosecution. Now, the law is settled to the extent that t…

Rakesh Divedi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(3), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1960/DEL/2020[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2011-12

…n was made. Considering the various opportunities given the Ld. CIT(A) was of the view that the assessee is not interested in effectively pursuing the appeals filed and guided by the principle as set out by the Apex Court in CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya [1997] 118 ITR 461(SC) and Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) dismissed the appeals of the assessee. 5. Aggrieved by this assessee is in appeal before the ITAT on various grounds. Apart from the lack of opportunity etc. the assessee has also challenged the assumptions of jurisdiction which was a ground raised be…

Rakesh Divedi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 40(3), New Delhi

In the result, both appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 1959/DEL/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Aug 2021AY 2010-11

Ajai Kumar Gupta, Allahabad vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Allahabad

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

ITA 251/ALLD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad06 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2012-13 Ajai Kumar Gupta, V. Assistant Commissioner Of 251, Chak, Zero Road, Income Tax, Circle-I, Allahabad, U.P. Allahabad, U.P. Pan-Abxpg3115C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Mr. S.K. Jaiswal, C.A. Respondent By: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 06.08.2021

For Appellant: Mr. S.K. Jaiswal, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

…ok Kumar Singh vs. ITO Ward 3(3), Varansi (in ITA NO. 151/ALLD/2011 for A.Y. 2008-09) that: It, therefore, appears that the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachaargee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it. Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Hokar vs. CWT. 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. The appeal of the assessee is, therefore, dismissed in the limine. Similar view has also…

Gda Finvest & Trade Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 10(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 189/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Sh.Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2005-06 Gda Finvest & Trade Pvt.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Delhi Rohtak Road, Assam Circle-10(1), Timber Market, Swarna Park, New Delhi. Mundka, New Delhi. Pan-Aaacg4200D Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2021

Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH.PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 GDA Finvest & Trade Pvt.Ltd., vs DCIT, Delhi Rohtak Road, Assam Circle-10(1), Timber Market, Swarna Park, New Delhi. Mundka, New Delhi. PAN-AAACG4200D APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2005-06 is directed against the order of…

Isolux Corsan India Engineering & Construction Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Circle- II, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3809/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Aug 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Sh.Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2012-13 Isolux Corsan India Vs Dcit, Engineering & Construction Circle-Ii, Pvt.Ltd., 1St Floor, Splendor Gurgaon. Trade Tower, Sector-65, Golf Course Extension Road, Haryana, Gurgaon-122018. Pan-Aabci9232Q Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 03.08.2021

Section 133(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “C” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & SH.PRASHANT MAHARISHI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 ISOLUX CORSAN India vs DCIT, Engineering & Construction Circle-II, Pvt.Ltd., 1st Floor, Splendor Gurgaon. Trade Tower, Sector-65, Golf Course Extension Road, Haryana, Gurgaon-122018. PAN-AABCI9232Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Ms. Anima Barnwal, Sr DR Date of Hearing 03.08.2021 Date of Pronouncement 03.08.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessmen…

Harsh Kumar Singh Bhadoriya, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 8179/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Harsh Kumar Singh Bhadoriya, Vs. Ito, H. No.2, Anukampa Apartment, Ward-1(3), Abhay Khand 4, Ghaziabad. Indrapuram, Ghaziabad (Up). Pan: Carpb9788B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mohan Kalra, Advocate Revenue By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestra, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.07.2021 Order

For Appellant: Shri Mohan Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Dhanestra, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148

…ncome of the assessee at Rs.13,01,200/-. 4. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 (SC); the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.); and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 2 5. Aggrieve…

Girdhar Bajaj, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 47(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 298/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Jul 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharatassessment Year : 2014-15 Girdhar Bajaj, Vs Ito, 7331/1, Khari Baoli, Ward-47(2), Delhi-110006. New Delhi. Pan-Aaipb3187H Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.Gaurav Pundir, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2021

Section 68

…en that before Ld. CIT(A), various opportunities were granted to the assessee. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notices therefore, following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). I hereby dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Above decision was pronounced on conclusion of Virtual Hearing on 29th July, 2021. (KUL BHARAT) J…

Abdul Nasir, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-63(2), New Delhi

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

ITA 8630/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Abdul Nasir, Vs Ito, 7900, Gali Haji Mehboob Wali, Ward-63(2), Mohalla Shaikhan, New Delhi. Sadar Bazar (Nai Basti, Bara Hindu Rao), Delhi. Pan: Abxpn8345B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 28.07.2021 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 30Th August, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011- 12. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issue Of Notice Through Rpad. Therefore, This Appeal Is Being Decided On The Basis Of The Material Available On Record & After Hearing The Ld. Dr. 3. Although A Number Of Grounds Have Been Raised By The Assessee, These All Relate To The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming An Addition Of Rs.18,22,800/- Made By The Ao To The Total Income Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar Kataria, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…nexplained cash deposit in the bank account. Since the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) despite number of opportunities granted, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr., 118 ITR 461 (SC); the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.); and the decision of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 2 5. Aggrieve…

Unitech Holdings Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, Circle- 27(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4270/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jul 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Dr.B.R.R.Kumarassessment Year : 2012-13 Unitech Holdings Ltd., Vs Dcit, C/O-Luthra & Luthra Law Cricle-27(1), Ofices, 103, Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. Pan-Aaacu0237C Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.H.K.Chaudhary, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 28.07.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 28.07.2021

Section 14ASection 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “G” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER & DR.B.R.R.KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2012-13 Unitech Holdings Ltd., vs DCIT, C/o-Luthra & Luthra Law Cricle-27(1), Ofices, 103, Ashoka Estate, New Delhi. Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001. PAN-AAACU0237C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by None Respondent by Sh.H.K.Chaudhary, CIT DR Date of Hearing 28.07.2021 Date of Pronouncement 28.07.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal filed by the assessee for the assessment year 2012-13 is directed against the order o…

Blackstone Infracon Pvt. Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward-5(1), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 6005/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jun 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 144Section 250(6)

…appeal of assessee for want of prosecution. Judgment of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in 1. the case of Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 38 taxmann.com 204 (P&H). Judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT 2. vs., B.N. Bhattacharya [1977] 118 ITR 461 (SC). Order of ITAT Delhi in the case of Vipul Logistic & 3. Warehousing Pvt. Ltd., vs., ITO in ITA.No.5454/Del./2010 3 ITA.No.6005/Del./2019 M/s. Black Stone Infracon Pvt. Ltd., Pachkula. 5. Aggrieved with the said order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 6. I have heard the Ld. D.R. and perused the material avail…

Sri Venkateswara Constructions, Visakhapatnam vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 5(1), Visakhapatnam

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

ITA 224/VIZ/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 May 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, Sr.DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

…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 v. Rai Bahadur Hardutroy Motilal Chamaria [1967] 66 ITR 443 and CIT v.B.N.Bhattachargee [1979] 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…

Everon Educational Society, Bhimavaram vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Incometax, Circle-1(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 172/VIZ/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam05 May 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N.K. Choudhry, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Suman Malik, DR

Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)

Sh. Noren Mandal, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 2550/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2021AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Kul Bharata N D Shri Prashant Maharishi(Through Video Conferencing)

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Ms. Aman Preet, Sr. D.R.C

…Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 6. Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 7. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at…

Milind Mohanrao Vadangekar, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 3(1), Pune

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

ITA 2745/PUN/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune24 Mar 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Inturi Rama Rao & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vitthal Bhosale

Section 250

…आयकर अपीऱीय अधिकरण “ए” न्यायपीठ पुणे में । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE (Through Virtual Court) BEFORE SHRI INTURI RAMA RAO, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपीऱ सं. / ITA No. 2745/PUN/2017 नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Mr. Milind Mohanrao Vadangekar Office No.17, 2nd Floor, Yugay Mangal Commercial Complex, Kothrud, Pune-411 038 PAN : AAJPV1540P .......अऩीऱाथी / Appellant बिाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), Pune. ……प्रत्यथी / Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Vitthal Bhosale सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing…

Brahma Beverages (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-5(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 9192/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

For Appellant: Shri V.K. Bindal, CA &For Respondent: Mrs. Shivani Bansal, Sr. DR

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…d before the CIT(A), the ld.CIT(A), in the ex parte order passed by him, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by relying on the following decisions:- (i) Shahbad Cooperative Sugar Mills Ltd., 38 taxman.com 204 (P&H); (ii) CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharya (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC); (iii) Vipul Lgistic & Warehousing Pvt. Ltd. Vs ITO, ITA No. 5454/Del/10 - ITAT, Delhi; and (iv) CIT vs Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (ITAT - Del), 2 4. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and the CIT(A). We find, the AO, in the instant case, completed the assessment u/s 1…

Ravindra Kumar Rai, Jhansi vs. ITO, Chahatarpur

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

ITA 686/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 250(6)

…ssessment years 2011-12 and 2012-13. 2. At the outset, the ld. AR submitted that the ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the impugned orders, referring to the orders in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattahargee ITA No. 686/Agra/2018, 13 & 14/Agra/2020 2 & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Tribunal order in the matter of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del), has decided the appeals in limine, as the assessee could not avail reasonable opportunity of being heard on merits. It was submitted that the assessee needs one more opportunity of hearing to put up its cases on merits, as the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appe…

Bipin Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 33(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 6575/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhasstt. Year 2011-12 Bipin Jain, Vs. Itp Ward-33(3) C-2/2226, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070 Pan Aelpj5333A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

…tal income of the assessee in the order passed u/s 144/147 of the Income Tax Act 1961. 3. Since there was no compliance from the side of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi)and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor in ITA No. 710/2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the…