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 367,514 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

Shri Patel Yunus Ibrahim, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

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

ITA 1475/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1475/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Patel Yunus Ibrahim, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Mona Palace, A-4, Regent Park, . Of Income Tax, Bharuch Jambusar Road, Bharuch – 392 001. Circle, Bharuch. [Pan: Aaipp 9507 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: None. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.DR

…her it requires effective persuasion also. In view of these facts, we are of the view that the appeals of the assessee are liable for dismissal in the light of judicial pronouncements by Hon`ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Others 118 ITR 461(SC), wherein their Lordship have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” Further, the Hon`ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default their lordship observ…

Syndicate Bank, Noida vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5319/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr.D.R

…, we place reliance upon following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another, 118 ITR 461(SC). 4. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited above, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 15th May, 2019. [L.P. SAHU] [AMIT SHUKLA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15th May, 2019 PKK:…

Archit Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7997/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2005-06 Archit Securities P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 26A, Sadhna Enclave, Ward-2(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaca7849J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Subhi Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 13Th April, 2016 Passed By The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.44,82,582/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessing Officer Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…ed fact that due to non-appearance, the ld.CIT(A), relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and various other decisions, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, she has not decided the appeal on merit. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in 2 the interest of justice, I deem it proper to restore the issue to the file of the CIT(A) with a direction to grant one final opportunity to the assessee to substan…

Bbc World Distribution Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4813/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishibbc Global News Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Bbc World Income Tax, News Limited) Circle-1(1)(2, International Vineet Magan, C/O. Bbc Global Taxation, New Delhi News India Pvt. Ltd, Unit No. 301, Third Floor, Southern Park, Plot No. D-2, Saket District Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Bbc World Distributors Ltd, Vs. Dcit, International Taxation Vineet Magan, C/O. Bbc Global Circle-1(1)(2), New Delhi News India Pvt. Ltd, Unit No. 301, Third Floor, Southern Park, Plot No. D-2, Saket District Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR

…rested in prosecuting the appeal; hence, the appeal filed by the assessee is liable to be un-admitted and dismissed for non-prosecution. In our above view, we find support from the following decisions:- (i). In the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that “The appeal does not mean merely filing of appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (ii). In the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of assessee in default made following observations in their order: “if…

Bbc Global News Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4812/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR

Praveen Aroma P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-19, New Delhi

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

ITA 7740/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Praveen Aroma P. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A-33, Upper Ground Floor, Central Circle-19, Fiee Complex, New Delhi. Okhla Industrial Area, Phase Ii, New Delhi. Pan: Aagcp0072Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Akansha Garg, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 08.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 20Th September, 2018 Passed By The Cit(A)-27, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. The Assessee In The Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) In Confirming The Various Additions Made By The Assessing Officer.

For Appellant: Ms Akansha Garg, CAFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 115JSection 143(3)

…de addition of Rs.15 lakhs on account of bogus receipts. Since none appeared on behalf of the assessee despite issue of statutory notices, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of B.N. Bhattacharjee and Anr reported in 118 ITR 461 and the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s Chemipol vs. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009, dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4. I have considered the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the…

M/S. M.V. Food Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2642/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am M/S M.V. Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144

…nterested in prosecuting these appeals. Hence the appeals filed by the assessee are liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we find support from the following decisions :- (1). In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachrgee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that : “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 2 M/s M.V. Food Industries Ltd. A.Y: 2014-15 (2). In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in de…

Sen Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Additional CIT, Range - 7, Kolkata

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

ITA 987/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Sen Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range-7, Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 271D

…nterested in prosecuting these appeals. Hence the appeals filed by the assessee are liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we find support from the following decisions :- (1). In the case of CIT vs B.N.Bhattachrgee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that : “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (2). In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their orde…

Rajnesh Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT X, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 279/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Rajnesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Cit-X, 116, Devika Tower, New Delhi. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan: Afqpa1657C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St December, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit, Delhi -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. This Appeal Was Fixed For A Number Of Times & Was Fixed Last On 5Th March, 2. 2019. However, Since None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On That Date, Again Notice Was Sent Through Rpad Fixing The Appeal For Hearing On 6Th May, 2019. However, When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Him. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned Below, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution:- 1. Cit Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 Itr 461. 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 Itd 320 (Del.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 263

…the part of the assessee shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal field by him. Therefore, following the decisions mentioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the as…

Ajaynath & Sons, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5386/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…t of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 4. In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed. 3 ITA.No.5386/Del./20…

Bhoomica Agro Industries Ltd., Shahibabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 1272/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

M/S. Jai International, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri N.K. Choudhrym/S Jai International, Vs The Dcit, Circle-1, G-1/202, Udyog Vihar, Udaipur Sukher, Udaipur

…iwan 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. So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as per the provi…

M/S My Home Developers, Surat vs. Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(3), Surat

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

ITA 163/SRT/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 80I

…issue is set-aside to CIT (A). We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that the ld. CIT(A) 5. has simply dismissed the appeal for non-appearance by the assessee on various dates by applying case law of B.N. Bhattachargee & another (118 ITR 461) . We find that the ld. CIT (A) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of natural justice. The expression “audi alteram partem” implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society. The right to notice,…

Jawahar Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6800/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jawahar Lal Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K-107, Hauz Khas Enclave, Ward-32(5), New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aafpj4569E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…the appeal and no material/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 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 ap…

Shri Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2014-15

…e place reliance upon the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, get it revived by showing sufficient cause for non-appearance. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03/05/2019.…

Smt. Atro W/O Lekhraj, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2458/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Atro W/O Lekhraj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4081 Aali Village, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aqfpa5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

…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 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 libert…

Republic Stores (Trade), Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-56, Kolkata

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

ITA 716/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Republic Stores (Trade) Vs. Jcit, Range-56, Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…ence the appeal filed by the assessee 2 Republic Stores (Trade) A.Y: 2010-11 is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. For this view we find support from the following decisions :- (1). In the case of CIT vs B.N. Bhattacharjee and another, reported in 118 ITR 461 [relevant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that : “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” (2). In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default made following observation in their orde…

M/S. Mittal Creations, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 6(3)(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2006-07 is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 16/BANG/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumarassessment Year : 2006-07 M/S. Mittal Creations, Vs. The Assistant Commissioner Of #5, F-2, 1St Phase, Income Tax, Peenya Industrial Area, Circle – 6[1], Now C-6[3][1], Bangalore – 560 058. Bangalore. Pan : Aaefm 6030 C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. V. Srinivasan, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 03.04.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019

For Appellant: Shri. V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. L. V. Bhaskar Reddy, Addl. CIT

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)

…06-07, the assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A)-14, Bangalore. The CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution, following, inter alia, the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. Bhattacharjee and Others (118 ITR 461). 3. The assessee, being aggrieved by the ex-parte order of CIT(A)-14, Bangalore, dated 13.10.2017 has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein it has raised the following grounds:- Page 3 of 7 4. Ground Nos. 2 and 3 4.1 In these grounds (supra), the assessee contends that the CIT(A) was not justified in disposing off the assessee’s…

Shri Atul Kumar Goswami, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Range-5, Kanpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 363/LKW/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow23 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2012-13

Section 254

…we place reliance upon the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC). 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. However, the assessee is at liberty to move application u/s 254 of the Act in case the assessee so desires. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. (Order pronounced in the open co…

M/S Angad Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 4022/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

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

Section 271(1)(c)

…High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and 3 ITA.No.4022/Del./2016 M/s. Angad Developers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi. also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same”. In view of the above, respectfully following the aforecited decisions, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted. 5. In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed. Order pronounced in t…