How many judgments cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.?

2,267 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 143(3).

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 367,154 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 250 Section 147 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25 india opportunity of being heard section 250 nfac interest total income document

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

Sh. R.K. Arora, Noida vs. DCIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 4625/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 4625 & 4626/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 R. K. Arora, Vs Deputy Commissioner Of Income C-1/10, Sector-36, Tax, Central Circle, Noida, U.P. Meerut, U.P. (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaepa1214G Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 02.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 02.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

Section 253Section 282

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA Nos. 4625 & 4626/Del/2014 : Asstt. Years : 2007-08 & 2009-10 R. K. Arora, Vs Deputy Commissioner of Income C-1/10, Sector-36, Tax, Central Circle, Noida, U.P. Meerut, U.P. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAEPA1214G Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 02.12.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These two appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate order each dated 28.03.2014 of ld. CIT(A), Meerut. 2. Ea…

S.B.Construction Company, Birbhum vs. A.C.I.T Cir - Suri, Birbhum

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

ITA 486/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Dec 2015AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’Ble Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’Ble Am]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sujit Kumar Das, JCIT, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA [Before Shri Mahavir Singh, Hon’ble JM & Shri M. Balaganesh, Hon’ble AM] I.T.A. No.486/Kol/2013 Assessment Year : 2007-08 S.B.Construction Company –vs- ACIT, Circle-Suri, Birbhum (Appellant) (PAN: ABAFS 1504L) (Respondent) Date of concluding the hearing : 01.12.2015 Date of pronouncing the Order : 01.12.2015 Appearances :For the Assessee : None :For the Department : Shri Sujit Kumar Das, JCIT, Sr.DR O R D E R Per Shri Mahavir Singh, J.M. This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.11.2012 of ld. CIT(A), Durgapur for the asses…

Punnet Chawla, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5783/DEL/2012[2000-01]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Dec 2015AY 2000-01

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Smt. Beena Pillai, Jm Ita Nos. 5783/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Punnet Chawla Individual Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income S/O Bal Krishan, 5833-A, Tax, Circle-25(1), Swadesh Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Afwpc1171P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 01.12.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 01.12.2015 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘F’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM And Smt. Beena Pillai, JM ITA Nos. 5783/Del/2012 : Asstt. Year : 2000-01 Punnet Chawla Individual Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income S/o Bal Krishan, 5833-A, Tax, Circle-25(1), Swadesh Market, Sadar Bazar, New Delhi Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AFWPC1171P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Ved Prakash Mishra, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 01.12.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 01.12.2015 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 22.08.2012 of CIT(A)-XVIII, New Delhi. 2. During…

ITO, WD-48(3), Kolkata vs. Giasuddin Sardar, Howrah

In the result, both appeals are dismissed in limine

ITA 779/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Nov 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri N.V. Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmed

Section 12A

…2. Today when both cases are called for hearing neither the Assessee nor any AR appeared on his behalf. It appears that the Assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (I) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.), Hon’ble MP High Court in the ITA No.778-779/Kol/2013 Kalyan Educational Society v. CIT Drg. Page 2 case of Estate of Late Tukjirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. CIT 296 ITR 495 (P & H) and the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjee & anothe…

Ramesh Kumar Nangalia, Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range - 47, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1086/KOL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Nov 2015AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Shri M. Balaganesh, Am]

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri D. Lahiri, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…e is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as none is present before us at the time of hearing. Hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 3. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. 4. Order is pronounced in the open court. (M. Balaganesh) Judicial Member Dated : 26th November, 2015 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 2 Ramesh Kumar Nangalia AY 2016-07 APPELLANT – Shri Ramesh Kumar Nangalia, C/o Shri R. P. Sharma, 1. Advocate, 19D, Muktaram Babu Street, Kolkata-…

M/S. Mrg Promoters (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 5927/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Nov 2015AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. P. Dam Kanunjna, Sr. DR

…including that of Multiplan India decision decision s of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India s of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India s of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s 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), decision in Estate of Late Tukoj…

Smt. Annapurna Kundu, Hooghly vs. I.T.O WD - 2(4), Hooghly

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

ITA 1799/KOL/2012[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Gayasuddin Ansari, 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…

Asoke Kumar Dhar, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 33, Kolkata

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

ITA 491/KOL/2011[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…inciple is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subveniunt”. 5. 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, we treat this appeal as dismissed. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 6. Order pronounced in the open Court on November 20th, 2015. (P.M. Jagtap) Judicial Member Kolkata,…

Apj Financial Services Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 881/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shria.T. Varkey[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Apj Financial Services P. Ltd Vs. Ito, Co. Ward -1(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. First Floor, New Delhi - 110 001. (Pan : Aadca 6016 A) (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior Dr Date Of Hearing : 19.11.2015 Date Of Pronouncement : 19.11.2015 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR

Section 253Section 282

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI BENCHÉS, DELHI ‘G’ BENCH BEFORE SHRI N.K.SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRIA.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2010-11] APJ Financial Services P. Ltd Vs. ITO, Co. Ward -1(1), Thapar House, 124 Janpath, New Delhi. First Floor, New Delhi - 110 001. (PAN : AADCA 6016 A) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE BY : Shri K.K. Jaiswal, Senior DR Date of Hearing : 19.11.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 19.11.2015 ORDER Per N.K. SAINI, AM :- The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT (Appeals)- IV, New Delhi dated 14.11.2014 for the asses…

Sh. Ashish Bahl, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6718/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri J. S. Reddy & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH ‘D ’, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI J. S. REDDY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 6718/Del/2013 Assessment year : 2008-09 Ashish Bahl, Vs. ITO, Ward-21/4, E-2, Shanti Apartments, New Delhi Sector – 13, Plot No.7, Rohini, New Delhi GIR / PAN: AGFPB7009M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by : Ms. Rishpal Bedi, Sr. DR Date of hearing : 19.11.23015 Date of pronouncement : 19.11.2015 ORDER PER KULDIP SINGH, JM: The appellant Shri Ashish Bahl, by filing the present appeal, sought to set aside the impugned order dated…

Mr. Pramod Pandey, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3221/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

…ve, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting these appeals. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of 2 ITA-3219 to 3221/D/2013 CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. – [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeals in limine. 4. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed in limine. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 18.11.2015. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL) G.D. AGRAWAL JUDICI…

Mr. Pramod Pandey, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3220/DEL/2013[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2004-05

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

Mr. Pramod Pandey, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3219/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2015AY 2003-04

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Nandita Kanchan, CIT-DR

M/S Sameer Sales Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5376/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Aby T. Varkey Shri Aby T. Varkeyshri Aby T. Varkey Shri Aby T. Varkey

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Sunita Kejriwal, CIT-DR

…l/2013 3. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. – [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 17.11.2015. (ABY T. VARKEY (ABY T. VARKEY) (ABY T. VARKEY (ABY T. VARKEY (G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL) G.D. AGRAWAL JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER JUDIC…

D.Mahaveerchand, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

ITA 1788/CHNY/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai13 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesanआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1788/Mds/2015 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri D. Mahaveerchand, The Income Tax Officer, 4, Binny Colony, V. Ward – Xiii(4), Perambur Barracks Road, Chennai - 600 034. Chennai - 600 012. Pan : Afppr 8610 B (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri G. Baskar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri A.V. Sreekanth, JCIT

Section 133A

…The Ld. D.R. submitted that inspite of sufficient opportunity given by the CIT(Appeals), the assessee had not appeared before the CIT(Appeals). Therefore, by placing reliance on the decision of Delhi Bench of this Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320), the CIT(Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 4. I have considered the rival submissions on either side and perused the relevant material on record. In fact, the CIT(Appeals) has not disposed of the appeal on merit and the appeal was dismissed only on the ground that the assessee failed to appear before him. Under the scheme of…

Ideal Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

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

ITA 4790/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2015AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.K. Bansal :Asstt. Yrs: 2005-06 Ideal Laminates Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 214, Baghpat Road, Ward-1(3), Meerut. Meerut. Pan: Aabci 2415 H ( Appellant ) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. Dam Kanunjna Sr. DR

…impression that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. Considering the facts of the case 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), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) 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 preparation of…

Smt Soma Saha, Kolkata vs. I.T.O Ward-51(3)/Kolkata, Kolkata

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

ITA 1608/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Nov 2015AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singh & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2008-09

…l. Page 2 when the case is called for hearing neither the Assessee nor any AR appeared on his behalf. 3. It appears that the Assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In view of the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (I) Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.), Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukjirao Holkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 and Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court in the case of New Diwan Oil Mills Vs. CIT 296 ITR 495 (P & H) and the Hon’ble Suprme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjee & another 296 ITR 495 (SC), laying down proposition that a litigant has not on…

Sarvdaman Tyagi, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 3309/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri G. D. Agarwal, Hon’Ble & Shri A. T. Varkeysarvdaman Tyagi, Cit 153, Begum Bagh, Meerut Vs. Meerut, Adopt7668L (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.R.R. Kumar, Sr. DR

Section 263

…e 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference. (iii). In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (del). The appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal which was fixed for hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to Page No. 2 why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of…

Transweave Solutions Pvt Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA

ITA 1291/CHNY/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai06 Nov 2015AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri. S. Seetharaman, CAFor Respondent: Shri. P. Radhakrishnan, IRS, JCIT

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 43Section 43B

…sing Officer relying on the decisions including co-ordinate bench decision in the case of M/s. Helios and Matheson Information Technology Ltd vs. ITO in ITA No.134/Mds/2011 dated 05.07.2011 and the ratio laid down in of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Private Ltd 38 ITD 320 (Del) and further relied on the decision of Apex Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. :- 4 -: Bhattacharjee and another 10 CTR 354 were it was observed that the appeal means an ‘’effective appeal’’ and also expression prefer an appeal would mean ‘’effectively prosecuting an appeal’’ and adjudicated the appeal ex-parte. Aggrieved by the order of th…

Shri Puneet Jain, Meerut vs. ITO, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4152/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Nov 2015AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri J. Sudhakar Reddyassessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Rakhi Vimal, JCIT

…memo issued to the assessee that Tribunal fee is paid short by Rs.3,768/- has not been rectified. Thus, I dismiss this appeal as not admitted by applying the ratio of the decision of the Tribunal in Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inh…