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)

Lahoti Properties and Infrabuildcon Venture, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded

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

ITA 2564/PUN/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Feb 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2022-23 Lahoti Properties & Infrabuildcon Venture Ito, Ward 1, Lahoti Compound, Dayaram Road, Hatte Vs. Nanded Road, Latur S.O., Latur – 413512 Pan: Aadfl9693F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Kishor B Phadke Department By : Shri Chandra Vijay, Cit Date Of Hearing : 10-02-2026 Date Of Pronouncement : 10-02-2026

For Appellant: Shri Kishor B PhadkeFor Respondent: Shri Chandra Vijay, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 4Section 68

…did not comply to the various notices issued by the office of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, therefore, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC dismissed the appeal by relying on the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. 3 Bhattacharjee and another reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of M/s. Chhabra Land and Housing Ltd. 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 7. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset submitted that due to some miscommunication the assessee could not represent either before the Assessing O…

T Logiks, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 3 (1), Indore

In the result, the appeal is noted as dismissed"

ITA 576/IND/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Indore06 Feb 2026AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri B.M. Biyani & Shri Paresh M Joshi

Section 144Section 245Section 246ASection 250Section 253

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण, इंदौरन्यायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI B.M. BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.576/Ind/2025 (AY: 2012-13) T LOGIKS बनाम/ Income Tax Officer AG-273 Alankar, Scheme Vs. 3(1), Indore No. 74 Vijay Nagar, Indore (PAN: AACFT9876B) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri S.S.Solanki, CA Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2026 आदेश / ORDER Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an Appeal filed by the Assessee under section 253 of the income tax Act 1961,[ he…

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 446/RPR/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम", लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 445 & 446/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, ITO-1(2), CR Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 PAN: AGRPJ0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Asses…

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

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

ITA 445/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Feb 2026AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 445 & 446/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office Of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, Ito-1(2), Cr Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 Pan: Agrpj0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, Ca राज" की ओर से / Revenue By : Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, Cit-Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 03.02.2026 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of : 05.02.2026 Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per Avdhesh Kumar Mishra, Am: Common Facts & Similar Grounds Arise In The Above Captioned Appeals Of The Assessee; Therefore, These Appeals Were Heard Together & Are Being Disposed Off By This Common Order.

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Sharma, CIT-DR

Section 139Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 68

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधरी, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अवधेश कुमार िम", लेखा सद" के सम" BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 445 & 446/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Years: 2014-15 & 2015-16) Raju Janghel, C/E Beside Trivenia Vs Income Tax Officer-1(2), Office of Houshal Pan Thela, Gudhiyari, ITO-1(2), CR Building, Civil Lines, Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001. Raipur, Chhattisgarh, 492001 PAN: AGRPJ0572D (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : िनधा"रती की ओर से / Asses…

Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Pune vs. DCIT Cir-5, Pune

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

ITA 3024/PUN/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune03 Feb 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3024/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2018-19 Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Vs. Dcit, Circle-5, Flat No.803, Building C, Pune Treasure Park, Santnagar, Parvati, Parvatigaon, Pune 411009, Maharashtra Pan : Acdpb2796F Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Suhas P BoraFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 139(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

…preferred appeal before ld.CIT(A) but failed to appear on the dates of hearing fixed on 09.10.2024, 13.08.2025, 09.10.2025, 04.11.2025. Ld.CIT(A) accordingly following the judgment of Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjeee (1977) 118 ITR 461 dismissed the assessee’s appeal confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer. 5. I however note that ld.CIT(A) has not dealt with merits of the case as assessee failed to appear and comply with the notices of hearing. I am of the considered opinion that in the larger interest of justice and being fair to both the parties the issues raise…

Ritu Kalpesh Hiran, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

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

ITA 1649/PUN/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Jan 2026AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Manish Mehta, Addl.CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 149Section 151ASection 69A

…3. On appeal, since there was non-compliance to the various notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, he dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution applying the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 4. Dissatisfied, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal raising the following grounds of appeal : “1. Whether on facts and in law, the notice u/s 148 dt 21.07.2022 issued in violation of provisions of Section 151A b…

Jaykrishna D Pathak, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 8722/MUM/2025[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Jan 2026AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain & Shri Bijayananda Prusethjaykrishna D Pathak, Vs. Dcit 32(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra 17/23 Amina Mansion, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Kolsa Mohalla Nakoda 400051. Street, Mumbai-400019. Pan/Gir No: Agnpp3108K (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

…IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, MUMBAI “F” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BIJAYANANDA PRUSETH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Jaykrishna D Pathak, vs. DCIT 32(1), Kautilya Bhawan, Bandra 17/23 Amina Mansion, Kurla Complex, Bandra East, Mumbai- Kolsa Mohalla Nakoda 400051. Street, Mumbai-400019. PAN/GIR No: AGNPP3108K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Shri Viraj Mehta Respondent by Ms. Kavitha Kaushik (SR DR) Date of Hearing 28.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 20.02.2026 O R D E R PER BIJYANANDA PRUSETH, AM: This appeal filed by the assessee emanates from the order passed under se…

Kesaram Chatararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(21)(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 6556/MUM/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Rahul Chaudhary () Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: Ms. Naina ChaurasiaFor Respondent: 10/12/2025

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69Section 69A

…not interested in pursuing the appeal. 4.2 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 4.2 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case 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 of B.N.Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 461) that appeal of B.N.Bhattacharjee and another (118 ITR 461) that appeal does not mean merely filing of memo of appeal but also does not mean merely filing of memo of appeal but also does not mean merely filing of memo of appeal but also pursuing it effectively. In cases where the appellan…

Santosh Hanumant Salke, Kudalwadi, Chikhli vs. Ward 9(3), Pune, Akurdi

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

ITA 3361/PUN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune19 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.3361/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri J. G. BhumkarFor Respondent: Date of hearing

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

…08.07.2025, 24.07.2025 and 29.09.2025 assessee except once making request for adjournment on 11.06.2025 subsequently failed to respond to the notices of hearing. Ld.CIT(A) following the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjeee 118 ITR 461 dismissed the appeal in limine and has not dealt with merits of the case except confirming the addition made by the assessing Officer. 4. Before me, ld. Counsel for the assessee has placed reliance on the decision of Coordinate Bench Delhi in the case of Triveni Engineering and Industries Ltd. Vs. ACIT – ITA Nos. 1962 to 1967 and others dated 29…

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

ITA 8436/DEL/2025[2022-23]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2022-23

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148

…bmissions and evidences from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that various notices being issued and non-compliance on the part of the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri B.N. Bhattacharya and others 118 ITR 461, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that they had sought information under the Right to Information Act to collect information and file the written submissions, thereafter, could not file submissions and evidences before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. ITA nos.- 8433 to 8436/Del/2025 4.…

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

ITA 8435/DEL/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148

…bmissions and evidences from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that various notices being issued and non-compliance on the part of the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri B.N. Bhattacharya and others 118 ITR 461, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that they had sought information under the Right to Information Act to collect information and file the written submissions, thereafter, could not file submissions and evidences before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. ITA nos.- 8433 to 8436/Del/2025 4.…

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

ITA 8434/DEL/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148

…bmissions and evidences from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that various notices being issued and non-compliance on the part of the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri B.N. Bhattacharya and others 118 ITR 461, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that they had sought information under the Right to Information Act to collect information and file the written submissions, thereafter, could not file submissions and evidences before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. ITA nos.- 8433 to 8436/Del/2025 4.…

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

ITA 8433/DEL/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Jan 2026AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Anubhav Sharma & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh

Section 143(3)Section 148

…bmissions and evidences from the assessee. The Ld. CIT(A) has observed that various notices being issued and non-compliance on the part of the assessee and relying upon the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shri B.N. Bhattacharya and others 118 ITR 461, the assessee’s appeals were dismissed. 3. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that they had sought information under the Right to Information Act to collect information and file the written submissions, thereafter, could not file submissions and evidences before the Ld. First Appellate Authority. ITA nos.- 8433 to 8436/Del/2025 4.…

Prithvi Landcraft Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5835/DEL/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ority nor any documentary evidences/information in support of the case made out by the assessee have been submitted. Relying upon several judgements passed by different authorities including the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr, 118 ITR 461 the appeals were disposed of. 3. Before us too, in spite of notices having been served upon the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and, hence, in the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are found to be just and proper in dismissing the appeals. ITAs No.5834 & 5835/Del/2025 4. T…

Prithvi Landcraft Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 5834/DEL/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Jan 2026AY 2016-17

Bench: Ms. Madhumita Roy & Shri Naveen Chandra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mahesh Kumar, CIT-DR &

Section 144Section 147Section 250

…ority nor any documentary evidences/information in support of the case made out by the assessee have been submitted. Relying upon several judgements passed by different authorities including the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Anr, 118 ITR 461 the appeals were disposed of. 3. Before us too, in spite of notices having been served upon the assessee, none appeared on behalf of the assessee and, hence, in the absence of any assistance rendered by the assessee, the orders passed by the Ld. CIT(A) are found to be just and proper in dismissing the appeals. ITAs No.5834 & 5835/Del/2025 4. T…

Umashanker Shiwaprasad Modi, Thane vs. Circle 19(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 5074/MUM/2025[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai13 Jan 2026AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri Sandeep Gosain () & Shri Om Prakash Kant () Assessment Year: 2018-19 Mr. Umashanker Modi Income Tax Department, Office No. D, 12Th Floor, Mbc Park, National Faceless Appeals Vs. D Building, Near Hypercity, Centre (Nfac), Delhi. Ghodbunder Road, Kasarvadavali, Thane West, Thane- 400615. Pan No. Aabpm 8785 D Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Mr. Vivek Perampurna, CIT-DRFor Respondent: Mr. Fenil Bhatt

Section 144Section 250Section 68

…red, since the assessee remained absent and there was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. was no assistance from the assessee. In the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477, 478), the Hon'ble Supreme Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477, 478), the Hon'ble Supreme Bhattacharya. (118 ITR 461) (Pages 477, 478), the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that appeal does not mean, the mere filing of the Court held that appeal does not mean, the mere filing of the Court held that appeal does not mean, the mere filing o…

Ravindra Babanrao Kasar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Pune

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

ITA 2634/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Jan 2026AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Borad & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2634/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare

Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “B”, PUNE BEFORE DR.MANISH BORAD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.2634/PUN/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ravindra Babanrao Kasar, Vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Flat No.1102, B-340/1A, 2A, Pune Tuscan Estate, Kharadi By Pass Road, Kharadi, Pune 411014 Maharashtra PAN : ALHPK2688L Appellant Respondent Appellant by : Smt. Deepa Khare Respondent by : Shri Sanjay Dhivare (Through Virtual) Date of hearing : 22.12.2025 Date of pronouncement : 06.01.2026 आदेश / ORDER PER DR. MANISH BOARD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : The captioned app…

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

The appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 168/PAN/2025[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji16 Dec 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliassessment Year : 2012-13 Jai Hind Souharda Sahakari Sangh Niyamit, Bazar Road, Tal.: Hukkeri, Belgavi-591309 Pan:Aaajj0226F . . . . . . . Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Pramod Vaidya [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Rijjula Uniyal[‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(1)Section 80P

…see through ITBA portal which were neither attended nor replied. In the event of assessee’s failure to respond to former notices, adduce documentary evidence in support of claims/grounds etc., the Ld. CIT(A) placing reliance on ‘CIT Vs B N Bhattacharya [1977, 118 ITR 461 (SC)] dismissed the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution. Further aggrieved, the assessee came in present appeal before the Tribunal. 5. Without touching merits & grounds of appeal we have heard the rival parties on former limited issue and subject to rule 18 of ITAT- Rules, 1963 perused the material placed on records and considered the facts in…

Orange Fish Entertainment Prvite Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(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 5213/MUM/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai16 Dec 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Om Prakash Kant () & Shri Anikesh Banerjee () Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Mr. Nitesh Joshi a/wFor Respondent: Mr. Virabhadra Mahajan, Sr. DR

…Chhabra Land & Housing Ltd. after following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. following the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee & other 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does Bhattacharjee & other 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does Bhattacharjee & other 118 ITR 461 [SC] held that the appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal b not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing the ut effectively pursuing the same. Considering the above facts and material on reco…

Karthikeya Hotels, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1446/HYD/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad12 Dec 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: the Tribunal. Shri D. Veera Reddy, being the partner of the assessee and who looks after the affairs of the assessee, has filed an affidavit explaining the reasons that, the appeal relates to proceedings under Section 206C of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and that the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated 27.02.2025 was received by email on 27.02.2025. The partner of the assessee was not well and was having medical issues which required frequent visits to the hospitals and upon performing various procedures

Section 206CSection 206C(7)

…led any response. Therefore, Ld. CIT(A) disposed of the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution by following certain judicial precedents, including the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461, and upheld the additions made by the A.O. towards short collection of tax at source and interest under Section 206C(6A) and Section 206C(7) of the Act. 8. Aggrieved by the order of Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal. 6 Karthikeya Hotels 9. The learned counsel for the assessee, Shri M.V. Anil Kumar and Ms. Sreelekha,…

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

Lahoti Properties and Infrabuildcon Venture, Latur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Nanded

T Logiks, Indore vs. Income Tax Officer 3 (1), Indore

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

Raju Jhanghel, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(2), Raipur

Sanjeev Yashwant Bartakke, Pune vs. DCIT Cir-5, Pune

Ritu Kalpesh Hiran, Satara vs. ITO, Satara

Jaykrishna D Pathak, Mumbai vs. DCIT 32(1), Mumbai

Kesaram Chatararamji Choudhary, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 28(21)(1), Mumbai

Santosh Hanumant Salke, Kudalwadi, Chikhli vs. Ward 9(3), Pune, Akurdi

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

Vikas Jain, Noida vs. ACIT, CC-7, Delhi

Prithvi Landcraft Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

Prithvi Landcraft Private Limited, Noida, Uttar Pradesh vs. Assessing Officer, NFAC

Umashanker Shiwaprasad Modi, Thane vs. Circle 19(3), Mumbai

Ravindra Babanrao Kasar, Pune vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Pune

Jai Hind Souharda Pattin Sahakari Niyamit, Belagavi vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belagavi

Orange Fish Entertainment Prvite Limited, Mumbai vs. DCIT 13(1)(1), Mumbai

Karthikeya Hotels, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer TDS, Ward-1(4), Hyderabad