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 367,181 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

Asian Electronics Ltd, Mumbai vs. Asst CIT (OSD) Cir 3(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 4059/MUM/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri D.T. Garasia () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2004-05 Asian Electronics Ltd. Acit-3(1) 107, Sumer Kendra, P.B. Vs. Aayakar Bhavan, Marg, Behind Mahindra Mumbai. Towers Worli Mumbai-400018 Pan No. Aabca0832C Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 03/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 29/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh Kumar Yadav, DR

Section 143(3)

…be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A), having gone through the relevant record has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 29/11/2017. (D.T. GARA…

Ms Soma Paul, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-24(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee, is dismissed, for non prosecution

ITA 981/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Ms. Soma Paul Vs. I.T.O, Ward-24(2), Kolkata 41, P.C. Ghosh Road, Kolkata – 700 169, A.J.C Bose Road, 048. Bamboovila, 9Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Axbpp 0510 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 27/11/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement: 27/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2010-11, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-19, Kolkata Dated 31.03.2016. 2. This Case Was Listed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 27.11.2017 & For This Assessee Was Informed. Today I.E. On 27.11.2017 When The Case Was Called On Board, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Request For Adjournment Has Been Filed Before The Tribunal Despite The Service Of Notice Upon The Assessee. It Seems That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting Her Appeal; Hence, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed, For Non-Prosecution. In Our Above View, We Find Support From The Following Decisions: (1) In The Case Of Cit Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & 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 (M.P.) While Dismissing The Reference Made At The Instance Of The Assessee In Default Made Following Observation In Their Order: “If The Party, At Whose Instance The Reference Is Made, Fails To Appear At The Hearing, Or Fails In Taking Steps For Preparation Of The Paper Books So As To Enable Hearing Of The Reference, The Court Is Not Bound To Answer The Reference.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI N. V. VASUDEVAN, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Ms. Soma Paul Vs. I.T.O, Ward-24(2), Kolkata 41, P.C. Ghosh Road, Kolkata – 700 169, A.J.C Bose Road, 048. Bamboovila, 9th Floor, Kolkata – 700 014. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AXBPP 0510 E (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT सुनवाई की तारीख / Date of Hearing : 27/11/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement: 27/11/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pert…

M/S K. L. Sarda & Sons (HUF), Howrah vs. ITO, WD-35(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 698/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.698/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT

…not interested 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 B.N.Bhattachargee 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 order…

M/S. Dalha Exports Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 270/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No.270/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl.CIT

Pitambara Hardware & Metal Exports Pvt Ltd., Jhansi vs. A.C.I.T., Circle-2, Gwalior

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

ITA 247/AGR/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra24 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

…I 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), I 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 24/11/2017. (…

Pragatee Enterprises, Mumbai vs. DCIT 12(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1356/MUM/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2011-12 Pragatee Enterprises Dcit-12(1) 4Th Floor, 152, Bazar Vs. Mumbai. Gate Street, Fort, Mumbai-400001 Pan No. Aajfp8649M Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, Dr Date Of Hearing : 17/10/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. M.C. Omi Ningshen, DR

Section 143(3)

…be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. It is found that neither the assessee nor its authorized representative appeared before the Ld. CIT(A). We find that the Ld. CIT(A), having gone through the relevant record has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A).…

Kalpesh K Shah, Mumbai vs. ITO 25(2)(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 3960/MUM/2013[1995-96]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 1995-96

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 1995-96 & Assessment Year: 1996-97 Kalpesh K. Shah Ito-25(2)(1), Shanti Villa, Nr. St. Vs. Pratyaksha Kar Lawrence School, Bhavan, Bkc Devidas Lane, Borivali Mumbai-400051. (W), Mumbai-400103 Pan No. Aacps4907Q Appellant Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Mr. Rajesh Kumaryadav, Dr Date Of Hearing : 09/11/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Rajesh KumarYadav, DR

Section 271(1)(c)

…o be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A), having gone through the relevant record has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 24/11/2017. (MAHAVIR…

M.S Shah Developers, Mumbai vs. ACIT 15(2), Mumbai

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 7172/MUM/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai24 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2009-10 M/S M.S. Shah Acit-15(2), Developers, 102/B-3, Vs. Matru Mandir, R. Greenfield Society, No. 113, Grant Road Mapkhan Nagar, Marol, (W), Andheri (E), Mumbai-400007 Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Abbfs1494C Appellant Respondent Assessment Year: 2009-10 Acit-15(2), M/S M.S. Shah Developers, Matru Mandir, R. No. Vs. 102/B-3, Greenfield 113, Grant Road (W), Society, Mapkhan Nagar, Mumbai-400007 Marol, Andheri (E), Mumbai-400059. Pan No. Abbfs1494C Appellant Respondent Revenue By : Mr. Suman Kumar, Dr Assessee By : None Date Of Hearing : 21/09/2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 24/11/2017

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mr. Suman Kumar, DR

Section 143(3)

…be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: 1. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 3. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 4. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the relevant materials on record. We find that the Ld. CIT(A), having gone through the relevant record has partly allowed the appeal filed by the assessee before him. We uphold the order of the Ld. CIT(A). M/s M.S. Shah Developers 5. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the ope…

M/S. Bhatter Metals Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Mewat

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 471/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

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

…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- admitted. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court. (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 23nd Novembe…

M/S Mathur Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2741/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimathur Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 29, Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road, Ward-16(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacm0006B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, 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…

M/S. A.N. Construction, Rampur vs. ITO-I, Rampur

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

ITA 2555/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. An Construction, Vs. Ito-I, C/O. Ahsaan Colony, Diamond Road, Rampur Moshin E-Azam Colony, Diamond Road, Rampur Pan:Aajfa1468M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

M/S. Mahila Jagriti and Vikas Kendra, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rewari

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 5271/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2010-11

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2010-11 Mahila Jagriti and Vikas ACIT, Rewari Circle Kendra vs. Rewari 1039/23 DLF Colony Rohtak 124 001 PAN: AABTM 5551 B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R Date of Hearing 16th November, 2017 Date of Pronouncement 21st November, 2017 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), New Delhi dated 30.04.2015 for the A.Y. 2010-11. None appeare…

N.S. Committee, Thana Bhawan (Now Known As Ganna Vikas Parishad, Thana Bhawan), Gorakhpur vs. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-

ITA 7093/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

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

…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- admitted. Order pronounced in the open Court. (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 21st November, 2017 VBP/- 3 ITA.No.7093/Del./2014 N.S. Committ…

M/S. Cane Development Council, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-

ITA 6479/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

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

…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- admitted. Order pronounced in the open Court. (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER Delhi, Dated 21st November, 2017 VBP/- 3 ITA.No.6479/Del/2014 Cane Developm…

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5574/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiravinder Kumar, Vs. Dcit, E-1A, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle-4, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaapk4245M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Apurva Karan, CIT DR

M/S. Ram Dev Rice Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 4479/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES: ‘F’, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT. BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER A.Y. 2008-09 Ram Dev Rice Pvt.Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Karnal Circle C/o OP Sapra & Associates Karnal Advocates CIT(A) 763, New Friends Colony New Delhi 110 025 PAN: AACCR 7125 A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.D.R Date of Hearing 21st November, 2017 Date of Pronouncement 21st November, 2017 ORDER PER BEENA A PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal by assessee has been directed against the order of Ld. CIT(A), Karnal dated 11.1…

Smt. Preeti Srivastava, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-

ITA 5200/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Preeti Srivastava, Vs. Ito, Flat No.A-803, Plot No.10, Ward 2(1), Brindavan Garden, Sector-12, Ghaziabad. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Bhdps1463G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

…that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non- prosecution. Our above view finds support from the following decisions:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & anr., 118 ITR 461, wherein their Lordships have held: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the following observation:- “If the party, at whose i…

M/S Romp Merchants (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 780/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 780/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattcharjee, Addl.CIT

Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, Agra vs. DCIT, Agra

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

ITA 19/AGR/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra15 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

…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 these appeals 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, all appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 15/11/2…

J.S.S. Steelitalia Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2630/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A. Pillai

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR

…) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 3 (J.S.S. Steelitalia Ltd.) 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 by respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. 8. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. (Order Pronounced in the Court on 14/11/20…