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

Smt Arati Sen, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 659/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Assessment Year 2006-07 Smt. Arati Sen Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Gopinath Sen Ward-7(3), Kolkata 1/Ic, Shibdas Bhaduri Street Kolkata-700004 Pan/Gir No.: Aapts 9174 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Assessment Year 2006-07 Smt. Arati Sen Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R of (Late) Gopinath Sen Ward-7(3), Kolkata 1/IC, Shibdas Bhaduri Street Kolkata-700004 PAN/GIR No.: AAPTS 9174 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Date of Hearing : 30/12/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 04/01/2017 O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.01.2016 of CIT(A)-16, Kolkata, relating to AY 2006-07. 2. This appeal came for heari…

M/S A. P. Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 268/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S A. P. Engineering Corporation, Vs. Ito, Ward-51(4), Af-321, Rabindrapally, Kolkata Ralbagan, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 Pan/Gir No.: Aaffa 1859 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s A. P. Engineering Corporation, Vs. ITO, Ward-51(4), AF-321, Rabindrapally, Kolkata Ralbagan, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 PAN/GIR No.: AAFFA 1859 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : None Date of Hearing : 03/01/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03/01/2017 O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.11.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2008-09. 2. This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 03.01.…

Mr. Seva Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4721/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4721/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Seva Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Shakti Business System, Ward-51(1), Bq-25, West Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaxps6751R Assessee By : None Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-17, New Delhi. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. The Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To The Assessee On 03.11.2016 Through Rpad Which Has Not Yet Been Returned Back By The Postal Authority. It, Therefore, Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Matter.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…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 3 Seva Singh to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as…

Sh. Vijay Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6073/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita Nos. 6073 & 6074/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vijay Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O P.N. Chawla, Advocate, Ward-39(4), B-V, Vandhana, 11, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzpk2007P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Kumari, CIT DR

…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 3 Vijay Kumar 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, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application…

Sajal Roy, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 727/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SK. Z.H. Tanweer, JCIT, Sr.DR

…ssessee nor any adjournment application is filed. It seems that assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. 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 order :…

M/S. Raj Enterprises, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1613/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabal Choudhury, JCIT

…s 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.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 order :…

/S Filatech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

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

ITA 5522/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Dec 2016AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2012-13 Filatech Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, Unit No.19, 1St Floor, Ward-1(4), Augusta Point, Gurgaon. Gold Course Road, Gurgaon. Pan : Aaccn3164B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…ears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. My 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 in…

Senior Media Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3929/DEL/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

…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. 5. 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. 6. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the above appeals for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then it would be at…

Nirmal Kumar Budhia, Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-44(1), Kolkata

In the result, assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 1229/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2010-11 Nirmal Kumar Budhia V/S. Ito Ward-44(1) 154, J.L. Bjaj Street, 3, Govt Place Kolkata-700 007 Kolkta-700 001, [Pan No.Adjpb 0745 M] Ground Floor. .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

Section 143(3)

…w Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference answered 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 of the assessee for non-prosecution. Before parting, we observe that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed, then h…

Team Computers Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3663/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Lalit Kumar, Jm Ita Nos. 3663 & 2160/Del/2013 : Asstt. Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 Team Computers Pvt. Ltd., Vs Commissioner Of Income Tax(A)- 1, Mohd. Pur, Xix, Vikas Bhawan, New Delhi-110016 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaact3478J Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Separate Orders Of The Ld. Cit(A)-19, New Delhi Dated 27.11.2012 & 21.01.2013 For The Assessment Years 2008-09 & 2009-10 Respectively.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…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. ITA Nos. 3663 & 2160/Del/2013 3 Team Computers Pvt. Ltd. 7. So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for settin…

Nikhil Seksaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 314/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.314/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Nikhil Seksaria, Vs. Ito Ward-51(4), Kolkata C/O Manish Dokania, 12, Mango Lane, Kolkata- 700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Beaps 0039 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Adcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata In Appeal No.119/Xxxii/11-12/51(4)/Kol, Dated 12.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2011. 2. This Appeal Came For Hearing Today I.E. On 23.11.2016. The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee For Hearing By Registered Post With Ad On 28.6.2016, 26.07.2016, 01.09.2016 & 9.11.2016 To The Address Given By The Assessee In Column No.10 Of Form No.36. However No One Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Date Of Hearing. Neither An Adjournment Petition Was Filed In Respect Of The Above Assessee, It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Appeal. Hence, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non Prosecution.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, ADCIT

…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.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 order :…

M/S. Wuhan Research Institute of Post and Telecommunication India Project Office, Noida vs. ADIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2058/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5810/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wri India Branch Office, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-48, Sector-65, Noida, Tax, Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw5534A Ita No. 2058/Del/2014: Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Wuhan Research Institute Of Post Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax & Telecommunication-Project Circle-2(2), (Int. Taxation), Office, C-48, Sector-65, New Delhi Noida -201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw4737B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 28.08.2013 & 30.11.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Noida & Ld. Cit(A)-Xxv, New Delhi For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2003-04 Respectively. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. In 2 Wri India Branch Office Spite Of The Fact That Notices Of Hearing Were Issued On 03.10.2016 By Rpad At The Address Mentioned In The Impugned Orders & Form Nos. 36 Which Have Not Yet Been Returned Back By The Postal Authority. It, Therefore, Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Matter.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…8) 296 ITR 495) returned the 3 WRI India Branch Office 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, we dismiss the appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as per the provi…

Wri India Branch Office, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 5810/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

Karuna Shanker, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3154/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3154/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Karuna Shanker, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-70, Ambedkar Colony, Behind Ward-24(3), Temple, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110074 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anzps6117Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, New Delhi. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Inspite Of The Fact That Notice Of Hearing Was Issued On 07.10.2016 By Rpad At The Address Mentioned In The Impugned Order & Form No. 36 Which Has Not Yet Been Returned Back By The Postal Authority. Earlier Also When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 04.10.2016 Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. It, Therefore, Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Matter. 2 Karuna Shanker 3. The Law Aids Those Who Are Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Upon Their Rights. This Principle Is Embodied In Well Known Dictum, “Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus Jura Sub Veniunt’. Considering The Facts & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), We Treat This Appeal As Unadmitted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

…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. 3 Karuna Shanker 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…

M/S. Aerens Entertainment Zone Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2500/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

…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. 3 Aerens Entertainment Pvt. Ltd. 7. So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, we dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by movin…

Mahek K. Daswani, Navi Mumbai vs. CIT-III, Kalyan

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

ITA 2730/MUM/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh () & Shri N.K. Pradhan () Assessment Year: 2008-09 Mahek K. Dasani Vs. Cit-Iii E-8/01, Plot No 2 2Nd Floor, Rani Mansion Sector-1, Vashi Murbad Road Navi Mumbai Kalyan (W) 400703 Kalyan

Section 263

…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. 4.2 Their Lordships of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another(118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) has held that the appeal does not mean mere filing of the memo of appeal but effectively pursuing the same. 5. Respectfully following the above decisions, the appeal is dismissed for non-prosecution . 6. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 07/11/2016 (JOGINDER SING…

Bala Pritam Fastners Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2021/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2005-06 Bala Pritam Fastners Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, H-665/8, Govindpuri, Ward-2(3), Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaccb4810A

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR

…pears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. The appeal filed by the assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. My 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 in…

Smt. Saroj Bala, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 5138/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5138/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Saroj Bala Vs Ito W/O, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ward-2(3) House No. 1351, Sector-16 Fridabad Faridabad Adjpb2395M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

…an Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the 3 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 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 02/11/20…

Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4994/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2007-08 Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A-27, Mohan Co-Operative Indl. Estate, Circle-16(1), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaact4902H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR

Section 143(3)Section 144C

…ears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its 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 in…

S. L. Roy & Sons, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Durgapur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 227/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2016AY 2005-2006

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Mondal, JCIT

…osecute the appeals. Hence both the appeals filed by the assessee S.L.Roy & Sons 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 order :…