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 367,154 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. Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5881/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5881/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-23, Sudarshan Park, Moti Nagar, Ward-1(2), Delhi-110015 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca2028B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, 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 Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd. 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 a…

Smt. Sangeeta Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3842/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Ms. Sangeeta Goyal, M-90, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Greater Kailash-Ii, New 23(2), New Delhi Delhi Pan : Adppg7309A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxiii, New Delhi, Dated 21.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. This Is The Recalled Matter Which Was Dismissed Vide Order Of Itat Dated 19.12.2013 For Want Of Prosecution As Non- Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice Regarding Next Date Of Hearing. The Matter Was Recalled Vide Order Of Itat Dated 05.01.2015 Passed In M.A. No. 140/Del/2014. Thereafter, On 22.12.2015, When The Case

…vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee 3 AY: 2006-07 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 appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing the appeal filed then she would be at…

Mr. S.K. Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1612/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kant

…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. AYs: 2005-06 & 2006-07 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 appeals fi…

Smt Anju Goel, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3890/DEL/2012[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Sept 2016AY 2002-03

Bench: Ms Suchitra Kamble & Shri Prashant Maharishianju Goel, Vs. Ito, 74/1/28, Rajdhani Park, Ward-25(4), Rohtak Road, Nangli, Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aappg5199K (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. 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. B.D.M. Contractor & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 6751/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 6750/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S B.D. Mittal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs Dcit, H.No. 632, Sector-15, Circle-1, Faridabad-121001 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb8687L Ita No. 6751/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 M/S B.D. M. Contractor & Co. Pvt. Vs Dcit, Ltd., H.No. 632, Sector-15, Circle-1, Faridabad-121001 Faridabad-121001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabcb8686M Assessee By : None Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing : 06.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.09.2016 Order

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 appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as per the provi…

M/S. B.D. Mittal & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. DCIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 6750/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

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 appeals for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as per the provi…

Bensia Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-9(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1121/KOL/2014[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A No. 1121/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2003-04 Bensia Marketing Pvt. Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward – 9 (2), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aabcb 4352 N] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri M.K.Biswas, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biswas, JCIT

…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.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…

Vinayak Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-28(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1075/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Sept 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm] I.T.A No. 1075/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Vinayak Enterprise -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward – 28 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aagfv 9377 D] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri M.K.Biswas, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M.K.Biswas, JCIT

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

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

ITA 3629/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3629/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2004-05 Deepak Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, 69, Dda Flats, 1St Floor, Jwala Heri, Ward-26(1), Pashim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahopk9250H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2016 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, 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 Deepak Kumar 7. So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as…

Sh. Sanjay Verma, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3628/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3628/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sanjay Verma, Vs Income Tax Officer, 69, Dda Flats, 1St Floor, Jwala Heri, Ward-27(1), Pashim Vihar, New Delhi-110063 New Delhi-110002 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Acxpv5450A Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 24.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2016 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, 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 Sanjay Verma 7. So, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as…

Sh. Muddasir Nazar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3515/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3515/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 Sh. Muddasir Nazar, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-274, Kabutar Market, Welcome Ward-34(3), Colony, New Seelampur-Iv, New Delhi Delhi-110053 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adypn0645H Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 29.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 29.08.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 09.12.2013 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Xxvii, New Delhi. 2. Earlier This Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 29.06.2016 & On The Request Of The Ld. Dr Hearing Was Adjourned For Today I.E. 29.08.2016, Both The Parties Noted The Date. However, At The Time Of Hearing 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. 3. The Law Aids Those Who Are Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Upon Their Rights. This Principle Is Embodied In Well Known Dictum, 2 Muddasir Nazar “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 Muddasir Nazar 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…

The Siwanka Co-Op L/C Society Ltd., Sonepat vs. ACIT, Sonepat

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

ITA 3431/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Aug 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

…ITR 495) returned the reference unanswered since the assessee remained absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. 3 Siwanka Co-op L/C Society 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, respectfully by following the view taken in the cases cited supra, I dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. The assessee is at liberty to request for setting aside this order by moving an application as per the provis…

Manish Kumar Bansal, Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2574/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri J.S. Reddy & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaita No. 2574/Del/2014 : Assessment Year : 2009-10 Manish Kumar Bansal Vs Cit C/O M/S R.S. Jhalani & Co., Ca, Delhi-X 16-17, 1St Floor, Subzi Market, New Delhi. Hauz Quazi, Delhi. Ajopb3234A (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afwpc1171P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Rajesh Kumar, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 08.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 24.08.2016

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Rajesh Kumar, 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. 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 appeal for non-prosecution. 7. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Manish Kumar Bansal Page 2 of 3 Order Pronounce…

Sh. Surendra Kumar Ahuja, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 6721/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, 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 Surendra Kumar Ahuja 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 applic…

M/S. International Academy of Insurance & Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1867/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 1867 & 1868/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2008-09 & 2009-10 International Academy Of Insurance Vs Income Tax Officer & Financial Management Pvt. Ltd., Ward-11(4), 103, Ashoka Estate, Barakhamba New Delhi Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aabci3132R Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. A. K. Saroha, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.08.2016 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A. K. Saroha, CIT DR

…d absent and there was not any assistance from the assessee. ITA Nos. 1867 & 1868/Del/2014 3 International Academy of Insurance & Financial Management Pvt. 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, 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 as per the provi…

Mrs. Ramma Thakur, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 813/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Aug 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2003-04 Mrs. Ramma Thakur, D-761, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Saraswati Vihar, Delhi 25(1), New Delhi Pan : Admpt0093K (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By None Date Of Hearing 18.08.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 22.08.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxiv, New Delhi, Dated 29.11.2012 For Assessment Year 2003-04. 2. When The Case Came Up For Hearing On 16.01.2014, Assessee’S Counsel Requested To Adjourn The Case, Which Was Adjourned To 07.07.2014. On 07.07.2014, When The Case Was Called Out, None Turned Up On Behalf Of The Assessee & The Case Was Adjourned To 23.12.2014. Again On 23.12.2014, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & The Case Was Adjourned To 18.05.2014. Thereafter, The Case Was Listed For Several Times But Due To Non-Functioning Of The Bench The Case

…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) 3 ITA No. 813/Del/2013. AY : 2003-04 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 appeal for non-prosecution. Before parting, we add that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing…

M/S. Raman Anil & Associates (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6136/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

…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 i…

Mr. Santosh Kanojia, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1505/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

…rs that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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…

Pioneer Property Management Ltd., Kolkata vs. J.C.I.T (OSD) Central Circle -III, Kolkata.

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

ITA 2521/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Aug 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 2521/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Pioneer Property Management Ltd. -Vs.- Joint C.I.T. (Osd) Kolkata Central Circle-Iii,Kolkata [Pan : Aaccp 5904 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit.Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 04.08.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 04.08.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT.Sr.DR

…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 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 Pioneer Property Management Ltd. A.Yr.2009-10 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 d…

Rajeev Sood, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4164/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Aug 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11

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

…ars that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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…