CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1991#8 most cited

What is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. authority for?

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

2,267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,181 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. · Rule 19(2) Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules · appeal dismissed non-prosecution · appeal unadmitted · appellant non-cooperation · lack of diligence · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · appellate procedure

Also reported as

223 ITR 840

Sections most often in play

Section 250Section 147Section 144Section 142(1)Section 148Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25indiaopportunity of being heardsection 250nfacinteresttotal incomedocument

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

M/S. Rajshikha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6113/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR
Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA Nos. 6113/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2005-06 M/s Rajshikha Enterprises Pvt. Ltd. Vs Income Tax Officer, J-52, 2nd Floor, Saket, Ward-15(2), New Delhi-110048 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCR7633R Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. V. R. Sonbhadra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 13.06.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 13.06.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 08.09.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi. 2. The only grievance of the assessee in this appeal relates t…

Shri. Madhukesh S Angadi, Hubli vs. ITO, Hubli

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1387/BANG/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2016AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. S. R. Karuppusami, JCIT

…body was present on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. I dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution. 03. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 10th June, 2016. (ABRAHAM P GEORGE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER…

Msd. Nurnahar Begum, North 24 Parganas vs. I.T.O WD - 49(1), Kolkata.

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

ITA 2219/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeet Das, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and 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. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparatio…

M/S. Cane Development Council, Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1064/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1023 - 1025/Del/2014 & 1064 - 1065/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Cane Development Council, vs JCIT, C/o-Mashkoor Ahmed (Advocate), Range-2, 10-Dr. Suresh Market Complex, Muzaffarnagar Bhagat Singh Road, Muzaffarnagar. PAN-AAALC0276E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Manoj Kr. Chopra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement 09.06.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM By these five appeals filed by the assessee the correctness…

M/S. Cane Development Council, Muzaffarnagar vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1023/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘B’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1023 - 1025/Del/2014 & 1064 - 1065/Del/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08) Cane Development Council, vs JCIT, C/o-Mashkoor Ahmed (Advocate), Range-2, 10-Dr. Suresh Market Complex, Muzaffarnagar Bhagat Singh Road, Muzaffarnagar. PAN-AAALC0276E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. Manoj Kr. Chopra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 02.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement 09.06.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM By these five appeals filed by the assessee the correctness…

Bansilal & Sons (HUF), Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 809/CHNY/2016[2003-2004]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai08 Jun 2016AY 2003-2004

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…ddress to the Tribunal. From the conduct of the assessee, it appears that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. In these circumstances, as held by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Limited 38 ITD 320 that there may be various reasons for the assessee to remain absent at the time of hearing and one of the reasons might be absence to prosecute the appeal and also following decision of the Co-ordinate bench of the Tribunal in the case of Helios and Matheson Information Technology Limited vs ITO in ITA No.134/Mds/2011, dated 05.07.2011, we here…

Shri Rajesh Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1129/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sharvan Gotru, Sr. DR

…the assessee is not interested in the prosecution of appeal. 4. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then this order shall be recalled. 5.…

M/S. Pashupati Textiles & Prints Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. DCIT, Meerut

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1483/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sharvan Gotru, Sr. DR

…that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of appeal. 4. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then this order shall be recalled. 5.…

Rec Power Distribution Company Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 5215/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sharvan Gotru, Sr. DR

…the assessee is not interested in the prosecution of appeal. 4. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then this order shall be recalled. 5.…

M/S. Rampur Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd., Rampur vs. ACIT-I, Moradabad

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 6776/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Jun 2016AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S.R. Senapathi, Sr. DR

…ication for adjournment. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We may like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose…

Malanpur Steel Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, CC - Xxv, Kolkata

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

ITA 285/KOL/2011[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 285&286/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 154

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A Nos. 285&286/Kol/2011 Assessment Years : 2004-05 & 2006-07 Malanpur Steel Ltd., -vs.- A.C.I.T., Central Circle-XXV, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAACH 6603 D) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 31.05.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ITA No.285/Kol/2011 is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 30.12.2010 of CIT(A)-Central-III, Kolkata, relating to AY 2004-05.…

Shree Nursing Timber & Electric Stores, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 362), Kolkata

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

ITA 1567/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Jun 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri M.Balaganesh, Am] I.T.A Nos. 1567&1568/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Debasish Banerjee, JCIT, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri M.Balaganesh, AM] I.T.A Nos. 1567&1568/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Shree Nursing Timber & Electric Stores -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-36(2), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAMFS 0831 M) (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Debasish Banerjee, JCIT, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 30.05.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 01.06.2016. ORDER Per Bench These are appeals by the assessee against the order dated 11.03.2013 of CIT(A)- XX, Kolkata, relating to AY 2007-08. 2. Both the appeals came for…

Mamata Shankar Ballet Troupe, Kolkata vs. DDIT (Exemption)-II, Kolkata

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

ITA 1300/KOL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 May 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.P.Nag, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and 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. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparatio…

Jetha Nand Nagdev HUF, Delhi vs. CIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1290/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Jetha Nand Nagdev, Huf, C/O- Vs. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Anil Agarwal, Advoate, F-11/32, Delhi-Xiii, New Delhi Krishna Nagar, Delhi Gir/Pan : Aachj7560A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. T. Vasanthan, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.05.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 27.05.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Dated 06.01.2014 For Assessment Year 2009-10 2. On 22.02.2016, When The Case Was Called Upon, No One Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & The Case Was Adjourned For 24.05.2016. Again On 24.05.2016, Neither Any One Appeared, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Received On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice For Hearing Through Rpad At The Address Furnished By The Assessee In Column 10 Of The Memo Of Appeal In Form No. 36. It Gives An Impression That Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing Its Appeal. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), The Assessee’S Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution.

…n that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 2 AY: 2009-10 3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for prepara…

M/S. Inderjeet Chawla & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6680/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2001-02

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

…that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeals. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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 p…

M/S. Inderjeet Chawla & Sons (HUF), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6679/DEL/2013[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2001-02

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

…that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeals. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeals are liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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 p…

Sh. Naveen Kumar Kurele, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6385/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 May 2016AY 2009-10

…e is not interested in pursuing its appeal. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were 2 AY: 2009-10 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: "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 pap…

M/S Capso Industries, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 460/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

…s principle is embodied in the well known dictum - “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT –vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 25, 2016. (P.M. Jagt…

Swapan Mukherjee, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-54(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 391/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 May 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

…s principle is embodied in the well known dictum - “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT –vs.- Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on May 25, 2016. (P.M. Jagt…

M/S. Pace Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 384/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 May 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawal & Shri Chandra Mohan Garg

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Susan D. George, Sr. DR
Section 253Section 282

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘F’: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI G.D. AGRAWAL, VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No. 384/Del /2014 Assessment Year: 2010-11 M/s Pace Services Pvt. Ltd Vs. The Income-tax Officer Plot No. 22A, First Floor, Ward – 14(1) Shankar Market, Connaught Place New Delhi New Delhi PAN : AAACN 0017 F [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 23.05.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 25.05.2016 Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Susan D. George, Sr. DR ORDER PER CHANDRA MOHAN GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed aga…