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 367,282 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

Bellflower Heights Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1397/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss this appeal of the a…

Bhaktavatsala Conclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1396/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss this appeal of the a…

Bhoogarbhah Complex Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 9(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1355/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss this appeal of the a…

M/S. Antimony Vinimay Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1350/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss this appeal of the a…

M/S. Pincers Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1349/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss this appeal of the a…

M/S. Bhutnath Infrastructure (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1343/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata20 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

…behalf of the assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. So, it gives an impression that assessee is not seriously interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee & Anr. 118 ITR 461 (SC) observed that preferring an appeal means effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss this appeal of the a…

Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 3563/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Dlf Infinity, Tower-A, Circle-2, Gurgaon Sector-25, Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf City, Gurgaon Pan :Aaccp5202A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, 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 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…

Marigold Niketan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 249/KOL/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10 Marigold Niketan Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.,Amit Jain, M/S M. Ward-9(1) Jain & Associates 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block- E, 4Th Floor, Room No.15A, Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Aafcm 4272 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.11.2016, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Filed By The Assessee In Spite Of Issue Of Notice By Rpad. It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Serious In Prosecuting 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 8.N.Bhattacharjee & 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."

…is not serious in prosecuting 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 8.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." ITA No.249/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2009-10 Marigold Niketan Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-9(1) Kol. Page 2 3. In the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP) while dismissing the reference ma…

Lilu Ram, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

ITA 160/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Mishra, Sr. D.R

…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, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Order pronounced in the open Court on 13.06.2018. (BHAVNESH SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated : the 13th June, 2018 *gmv…

Better Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1354/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Better Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 23/1, Principal Khudiram Bose Road P-7,Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700006. Kolkata-700069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics 6024 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.Das, Addl.CIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Better Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-7(3), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 23/1, Principal Khudiram Bose Road P-7,Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700006. Kolkata-700069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAICS 6024 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri B.Das, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 07/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 07/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaini…

Arjun Lal Khanchandani, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2951/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Arjun Lal Khanchandani, Vs. Pr. Cit, 67/4, Madras House, Daryaganj, Delhi -18, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aanpk4318G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rachna Singh, 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 above appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then he would be at…

M/S. Anjal Garments, Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1954/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/S Anjal Garments Vs. The A.C.I.T A-98, Sector 5 Circle 36(1) Noida New Delhi Pan : Aaffa 1738 G [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 253Section 282

…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. 8. 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. 9. Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the appeal is dismissed for non prosecution with a liberty to assessee to move appropriate application and correct the defect wha…

M/S C & R Leather Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range-II, Kolkata

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

ITA 2339/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am M/S C & R Leather Fashion (P) Ltd., Vs. J.C.I.T., Range-Ii, Kolkata 29A/4A, G.J.Khan Road, Kolkata-700039. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata- 700069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 3055 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Tauheed, Addl. CIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM M/s C & R Leather Fashion (P) Ltd., Vs. J.C.I.T., Range-II, Kolkata 29A/4A, G.J.Khan Road, Kolkata-700039. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata- 700069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCC 3055 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri S.M.Tauheed, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 06/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 06/06/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pe…

M/S Jai Baba Investment Consultants (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-6(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1216/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

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

Clearview Healthcare P.Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-6(2), New Delhi

In the result, the Appeal filed by the Assessee stands allowed for

ITA 7472/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

For Appellant: Sh. Kapil Goel, AdvFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “SMC”, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 7472/Del/2017 A.Y. : 2013-14 M/S CLEARVIEW HEALTHCARE P. Vs. ITO, WARD 6(2), LTD., NEW DELHI C/O KAPIL GOEL, ADVOCATE, F-26/124, SECTOR-7, ROHINI, DELHI – 110 085 (PAN AAECC0475A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : Sh. Kapil Goel, Adv. Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR. ORDER This Appeal is filed by the Assessee emanate out of Order dated 05.9.2017 passed by the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, New Delhi pertaining to the Asstt. Year 2013-14. The assessee has raised as many…

Shri Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4) Now Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 700/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…mately, he passed away. Therefore, the assessee could not attend the hearing before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-party for non- prosecution by the assessee by applying the ratio of the decision in the case of CIT vs. B.N.Bhattachargee & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Surat/I.T.A. No.700, 3093 & 3094/A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 Page 3 of 10 (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). Therefore, the assessee could not submit additional evidence before the CIT(A), as no opportunity of being heard was al…

Rajeevkumar Hariprasad Tulsiyan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3093/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…mately, he passed away. Therefore, the assessee could not attend the hearing before CIT(A). The CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal ex-party for non- prosecution by the assessee by applying the ratio of the decision in the case of CIT vs. B.N.Bhattachargee & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Surat/I.T.A. No.700, 3093 & 3094/A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 Page 3 of 10 (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). Therefore, the assessee could not submit additional evidence before the CIT(A), as no opportunity of being heard was al…

Ashoke Kumar Bhadra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 1270/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Kol/2017 (A.Y: 2007-08 & 2012-13) Shri Ashoke Kumar Bhadra Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-49, Uttarpan Complex, DS-2, 2nd Floor, Martin Burn Road, Basirht, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Maniktala Civil Centre, West Bengal - 73411 Kolkata-700054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADQPB 4137 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 05/06/2018 आद…

Ashoke Kumar Bhadra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 1269/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM ITA Nos.1269 & 1270/Kol/2017 (A.Y: 2007-08 & 2012-13) Shri Ashoke Kumar Bhadra Vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-49, Uttarpan Complex, DS-2, 2nd Floor, Martin Burn Road, Basirht, Dist. North 24 Parganas, Maniktala Civil Centre, West Bengal - 73411 Kolkata-700054. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ADQPB 4137 J .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 05/06/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 05/06/2018 आद…

Jitender Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2102/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. D.R

Section 271(1)(c)

…f 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, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un- 3 ITA.No.2102/Del./2015 Shri Jitender Kumar Karnal (Haryana). admitted”. We, therefore, dismiss all the appeals of the assessee. 4. In the result, app…