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

M/S. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3844/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 M/S. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Flat No.909, Kailash Building, Tax, K.G. Marg, New Delhi Central Circle-13, New Delhi Pan :Aadcp8289N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Parmita M. Biswas, Cit(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…

R P Sharma Marketing P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle-20(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7425/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

…d, I 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, I 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 16th April, 2019. [AMIT SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 16th April, 2019 PKK:…

Mahendra Kumar Mogha, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 29(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7373/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

M/S. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3846/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhushri T. S. Kapoor

Section 254

…ce reliance upon the following case laws: ~ 2 ~ 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 these appeals 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, all the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. (Order pronounced in the…

M/S. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3845/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhushri T. S. Kapoor

Section 254

M/S. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3843/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhushri T. S. Kapoor

Section 254

M/S. Pragya Vision Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3842/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi16 Apr 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhushri T. S. Kapoor

Section 254

Anil, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7472/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

…d, I 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, I 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 April, 2019. [AMIT SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15th April, 2019 PKK:…

Sanjay Gupta, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Central Circle- 17, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 7434/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

…d, I 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, I 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 April, 2019. [AMIT SHUKLA] JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 15th April, 2019 PKK:…

M/S Rachna Enterprises, Narsinghpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Narsinghpur

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 219/JAB/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Rachna Enterprises V. Income Tax Officer Kandeli Narsinghpur Narsinghpur Tan/Pan:Aaffr2406J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Choughale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 28/8/2018, For Assessment Year 2013-14. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 3/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. On Perusal Of Record, It Is Noticed That The Notice Of Hearing Was Duly Served On The Assessee, As It Was Issued Through Rpad. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non- Prosecution. In This Regard, 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)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Choughale, D.R

…ase 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) ITA No.219/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 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, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/04/2019. [T. S. KA…

Rfiq Bhai, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-Seoni, Seoni

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 154/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 Rafiq Bhai V. Income Tax Officer Ward No.7 Ward Mominpura, Barghat Seoni Seoni Tan/Pan:Ajtpb3919P (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 03 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 24/4/2018, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 3/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. On Perusal Of Record, It Is Noticed That The Notice Of Hearing Was Duly Served On The Assessee, As It Was Issued Through Rpad. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non- Prosecution. In This Regard, 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)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

…se 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) ITA No.154/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 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, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 03/04/2019. [T. S. KA…

Shri Vasudeo Khatri, Seoni vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-Seoni, Seoni

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 153/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Vasudeo Khatri V. Income Tax Officer Nirmal Colony Ward, Seoni Barapathar, Seoni Tan/Pan:Ahppk7583A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per T. S. Kapoor, A.M.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-1, Jabalpur, Dated 24/4/2018, For Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 2/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. In This Regard, 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 & Another, 118 Itr 461(Sc)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

…lace 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) ITA No.153/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 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, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the o…

Shri Rameshwar Sarle, Betul vs. Income Tax Officer, Betul

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 148/JAB/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur03 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year:2009-10 Shri Rameshwar Sarle V. Income Tax Officer At Post Badodra, Betul Betul Tan/Pan:Bzips2120M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 02 04 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 03 04 2019 O R D E R Per T.S. Kapoor, A.M.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-I, Bhopal, Dated 15/5/2018, For Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 2/4/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear On The Date Fixed For Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. In This Regard, 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 & Another, 118 Itr 461(Sc)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. D. Chougale, D.R

…lace 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) ITA No.148/JAB/2018 Page 2 of 2 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, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the o…

Shivdhan Vinimay Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1569/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Shivdhan Vinimay Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-9(4), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR

Section 144

…may Pvt. Ltd. A.Y: 2012-13 this appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee 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…

Onrise Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 883/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No.883/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Onrise Tie Up Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-13(3), Kolkata [Pan : Aabco 8060 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee 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.” 1 2 I.T.A No.883/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 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…

M/S. Chirag Vyappar Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 3(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 880/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No.880/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Chirag Vyappar Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-3(2), Kolkata [Pan :Aadcc 4060 G] (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

Section 143(3)

…is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee 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 : 2 M/s. Chirag Vyappar Pvt. Ltd I.T.A No.880/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 “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 th…

M/S Bluerose Sales Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 849/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Sri M. Balaganesh, Am,] I.T.A No.849/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S Bluerose Sales Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- Ito, Ward-9(2), Kolkata [Pan :Aaecb 5952 H] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)

…is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Hence the appeal filed by the assessee 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 : 2 I.T.A No.849/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s Bluerose Sales Pvt. Ltd. “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 th…

M/S. Krishna Sales Corporation (Prop. Mr. Mahesh Ramavtar Mittal), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3)., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1469/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Section 143(3)

…ITA No.1469/Ahd/2017 Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 1 of 2 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AHMEDABAD ‘SMC’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD [Coram: Pramod Kumar Vice President and Mahavir Prasad JM] Assessment Year: 2013-14 Krishna Sales Corporation ……………………..Appellant E-2, 2nd Floor, Madhupura Market, Near Police Commissioner’s Office, Ahmedabad – 380 004. [PAN: ADRPM 3965 G] Vs. Income Tax Officer, …………..…........Respondent Ward -1(2)(3), Ahmedabad. Appearances by None for the appellant O.P. Pathak for the respondent Date of concluding the hearing : 19.03.2019 Date of pronouncement : 29.03.2019 O R D E R Per Pram…

Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1390/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1390/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd……..............………………………………………………….…….…..............…...Appellant C/O P.K. Himmatsinghka & Co. 41,B.B. Ganguly Street 2Nd Floor Central Plaza Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aabcm 8954 B] Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata….............………………………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 2Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29Th , 2019 O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm :-

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1390/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd……..............………………………………………………….…….…..............…...Appellant C/o P.K. Himmatsinghka & Co. 41,B.B. Ganguly Street 2nd Floor Central Plaza Kolkata – 700 012 [PAN : AABCM 8954 B] Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata….............………………………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the…

Neelam Sikka, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-67(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5757/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Neelam Sikka, Vs. Ito, F-167/8, Sbi Officers Flats, Ward-67(3), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Alxps7375L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. DR

…the part of the assessee shows that she is not interested in prosecuting the appeal field by her. 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, satisfies the Bench for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the ass…