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.

Arun Soni, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 220/RPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Sept 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita Nos. 220 & 221/Rpr/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arun Soni Industrial Area, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 Pan: Ajeps8535K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Nilesh Jain, CAFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 151

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण "यायपीठ “एक-सद"य” मामला रायपुर म" IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR "ी रवीश सूद, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI RAVISH SOOD, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA Nos. 220 & 221/RPR/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Arun Soni Industrial Area, Tifra Bilaspur (C.G.)-495 001 PAN: AJEPS8535K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/s. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bilaspur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Nilesh Jain, CA Revenue by : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 24.08.2023 घोषणा क" तार"ख / Date of…

Shri Amrit Raj Gupta, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Bilaspur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 26/RPR/2023[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur23 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.26/Rpr/2023 निर्धारण वर्ष /Assessment Year: 2013-14 Shri Amrit Raj Gupta Vs Income Tax Officer Ward No.25 Ward-1(1) Hatri Chowk Bilaspur Juna, Bilaspur Chattisgarh- 495 001 Pan No. Apmpg 1659Q (अपीलार्थी /Appellant) (प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent) .. निर्धारितीती की ओर से /Assessee By : Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal & Smt. Laxmi Sharma, Cas राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. Dr सुनवाई ाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 17/08/2023 घोषणाणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement : 23/08/2023 आदेश / O R D E R Per Arun Khodpia, Am : The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi, U/S 250 Of Income Tax Act, 1961 Dated 23.11.2022 For Assessment Year 2013-14, Arose From The Order U/S 144/147 Of The I.T. Act, 1961 Framed By The Assessing Officer, Ito, Ward- 1(1), Bilashpur Dated 19.11.2018. The Grounds Of The Appeal Raised By The Assessee Are As Under: “1. On The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case, The Ld. Cita) Has Erred In Sustaining The Addition Of Rs.58,00,000/- Made By The Ld. Ao On Account Of Undisclosed Income Being Capital Gain. 2. The Appellant Craves Leave, To Add Urge, Alter, Modify Or Withdraw Any Ground/S Before Or At The Time Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agarwal & Smt. LaxmiFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) (38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non- prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4. At the outset, the Ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the notices issued by the Ld. CIT(A) were never received by the…

Arati Behera, Cuttack vs. DCIT Asmnt Circle-2(1), Cuttack

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 214/CTK/2023[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Cuttack21 Aug 2023AY 2017-18

Bench: Before S/Shri George Mathan, Judicial & And Rajesh Kumarassessment Year : 2017-18 Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Arati Behera, At: Ranihat Po: Vs. Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Dcit, Asmnt Circle 2(1), Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Buxi Bazar, Cuttack Cuttack Pan/Gir No. Pan/Gir No.Aerpm 0403 L (Appellant (Appellant) .. ( Respondent Respondent) Assessee By : Shri P.R.Mohanty, Ar P.R.Mohanty, Ar Revenue By : Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr S.C.Mohanty, Sr Dr Date Of Hearing : 21/08 8/2023 Date Of Pronouncement : 21/0 /08/2023 O R D E R Per Bench

For Appellant: Shri P.R.Mohanty, ARFor Respondent: Shri S.C.Mohanty, Sr
Section 250(6)

…restored to the file of the ld CIT(A). 5. We have heard the rival submissions. A perusal of the impugned order shows that the CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P)Ltd., 38 ITD 320 and other decisions as the assessee failed to appear before him without considering the issue on merits. We observe that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for the CIT(A) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and reasons for such decisions. The provisions of section 250(6)…

Shri Chintan Kanjibhai Katariya, Anjar-Kutch vs. The ITO Ward-1, Gandhidham-Kutch

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 54/RJT/2022[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Aug 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Annapurna Gupta & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjeev Ranjan, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 250Section 40

…he reference is made falls 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 hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on Chetan Kanji Katariya vs. ITO Asst.…

Kalyani Barter Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. A.C.I.T., Circle - 2(1), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 51/KOL/2023[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Jul 2023AY 2015-2016

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Chirag Desai (on behalf of Miraj D. Shah, AR)For Respondent: Shri Braj Kishore Singh, JCIT, CIT D/R
Section 250Section 250(6)

…he ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in this case without passing a speaking order and dealing with the merits of the case dismissing the appeal for non-prosecution by applying the judgment of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan Indian P. Ltd. 38 ITD 320, ITAT Delhi. He prayed that the appeal be set aside to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for adjudication on merits. I.T.A. No. 51/Kol/2023 Assessment Year: 2015-16 Kalyani Barter Private Limited 2 The ld. D/R, though not leaving his grounds, did not oppose to this contention of the assessee. 3. After perusing the order passed by the ld. CIT(A), we fin…

Seema Pandit, Mount Au vs. ITO, Ward, Mount Abu

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 160/JODH/2019[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur17 Jul 2023AY 2009-10

Bench: The Cit(A) To Rectify The Order. The Cit(A) Has Rejected The Application U/S 154 Vide Order Dated 29.3.2019 & Served The Order On The Assessee On 19.4.2019. After Rejection Of His Application U/S 154, The Assessee Has Immediately Filed This Appeal Before The Hon'Ble Tribunal..

Section 154Section 250(6)

…re provided. No written submissions have been filed. Under the circumstances, I have no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT VS. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and also the decision of Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs CWT reported in 223 ITR 480 The law assists those that are vigilant with their rights and not those that sleep there upon. In the case of Suresh Chand Karbra, the Hon’ble ITAT, Jodhpur Bench, Jodhpur vide their order dated 08.10.2012, under the facts…

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 46/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

…ance the reference is made falls 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.” 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 hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated…

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 45/RJT/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

…ance the reference is made falls 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.” 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 hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated…

M/S. Champion Agro Ltd., Sapar (Veraval), Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Deputy Comissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the three appeals filed by the Assessee are hereby dismissed

ITA 44/RJT/2018[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Rajkot07 Jul 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed (Accountant Member), Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar (Judicial Member)

Section 133ASection 144Section 271(1)(c)

…ance the reference is made falls 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.” 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 hearing but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power treated…

Aj Energy Private Limited, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1), Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 1190/DEL/2022[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Manvendra Goel, CIT(DR)
Section 142(3)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68Section 69C

…al. This view has been affirmed by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2985/Ahd/2010 vide their order dated 31.12.2013, wherein following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.” 8.1. However, considering the facts that Ld.CIT(A) has not adjudicated the grounds taken by the assessee before him, related to legality of the re-opening of assessment and a…

Shri Varinder Kumar, Batala vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-2, Batala

In the result, the appeal of the assessee bearing ITA No

ITA 54/ASR/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar21 Jun 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Dr. M. L. Meena & Sh. Anikesh Banerjee

Section 250(6)Section 271Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 68

…ld not appear before the Ld. CIT(A). As such the order is bad in the eyes of law and the same may be cancelled. 8. That the Ld. CIT(A) has decided the case by following the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320. As such he should have also decided the appeal on law as well as on merits also which the C1T(A) has miserably failed to do so which is against the principle of natural justice. As such the order of the CIT(A) is bad in the eyes of law and the same is liable to be cancelled and the penalty confirmed may be cancelled. I.T.A. No.54/Asr/2023 5 Ass…

Bala Siddeshwar Aitha, Warangal vs. ITO, Ward-3, Warangal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 269/HYD/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad20 Jun 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 269/Hyd/2023 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sri Bala Siddeshwar Aitha, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Cherial, Ward-3, Warangal Warangal [Pan No. Apepa3520N] अपीलधर्थी / Appellant प्रत्‍यर्थी / Respondent निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Smt. S. Sandhya, Ar रधजस्‍व द्वधरध/Revenue By: Shri T. Venkanna, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 07/06/2023 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Pronouncement On: 20/06/2023

For Appellant: Smt. S. Sandhya, ARFor Respondent: Shri T. Venkanna, DR
Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…communication window that was opened by the NFAC on 03/11/2022. Having observed that since the assessee failed to avail the same, he had no option to proceed ex parte, the learned CIT(A) while placing reliance on the decisions of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del), Estate of Late Tukojirao Hokar vs. CWT 223 ITR 840 (M.P) and New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) and CIT vs. B.N.Bhattachargee and another 118 ITR 461 (SC), dismissed the appeal and confirmed the addition made by the learned Assessing Officer. 7. Learned CIT(A) did not refer to the facts of the case or the contentions rais…

Leela Devi Jain, Tonk vs. ITO, Ward- Tonk, Tonk

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 218/JPR/2023[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur14 Jun 2023AY 2011-12

Bench: The Date Of Hearing.”

For Appellant: Sh. Muzaffar Iqbal (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt Monisha Choudhary (Addl. CIT) a
Section 133(6)Section 139Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 68

…al. This view has been affirmed by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2985/Ahd/2010 vide their order dated 31.12.2013, wherein following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. The ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee prayed that the assessee is a house wife and she has not been given appropriate opportunity in the appeal filed before the ld. CIT(A) an…

Venkatesan Selvam, Chennai vs. Income Tax Officer, Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 472/CHNY/2023[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Jun 2023AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwalआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.472/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Venkatesan Selvam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 50/2, M.C. Road, Non Corporate Ward 6(2), Old Washermenpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 021. [Pan:Awhps3575K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant By : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Shri P. Sajit Kumar, Jcit सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing : 05.06.2023 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07.06.2023 आदेश /O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre [Nfac], Delhi Dated 10.02.2023 For The Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Delayed By One Day In Filing The Appeal & Filed A Petition For Condonation Of Delay In The Form Of An Affidavit To Which; The Ld. Dr Has Not Raised Any Serious Objection. Consequently, Since The Assessee Was Prevented By Sufficient Cause, The 2

For Appellant: Shri D. Anand, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 139(1)Section 142(1)Section 144Section 69

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ‘सी’ "ायपीठ, चे"ई IN THE INCOME-TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी. दुगा" राव, "ाियक सद" एवं "ी मनोज कुमार अ"वाल, लेखा सद" के सम" । Before Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Accountant Member आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.472/Chny/2023 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2017-18 Venkatesan Selvam, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No. 50/2, M.C. Road, Non Corporate Ward 6(2), Old Washermenpet, Chennai 600 034. Chennai 600 021. [PAN:AWHPS3575K] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से / Appellant by : Shri D. Anand, Advocate ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent by : Shr…

Ku. Anisha J. Thakkar, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Nashik

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 812/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

…ce without even seeking adjournments at the cost of central exchequer. 5. In the light of above facts and having regard to rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of ‘Multiplan India Ltd.’, 38 ITD 320 (Del); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of ‘Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT’ 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another’ reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) wherein their Lordships have held that, ‘the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of ap…

Smt. Jayshree Jayesh Thakkar, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Nashik

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 811/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

…ce without even seeking adjournments at the cost of central exchequer. 5. In the light of above facts and having regard to rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of ‘Multiplan India Ltd.’, 38 ITD 320 (Del); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of ‘Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT’ 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another’ reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) wherein their Lordships have held that, ‘the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of ap…

Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, Nashik vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(4), Nashik

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 810/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

…ce without even seeking adjournments at the cost of central exchequer. 5. In the light of above facts and having regard to rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of ‘Multiplan India Ltd.’, 38 ITD 320 (Del); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of ‘Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT’ 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another’ reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) wherein their Lordships have held that, ‘the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of ap…

Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, Nashik vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 2, Nashik

Appeals of the assessee are DISMISSED

ITA 809/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: FixedITAT Pune01 May 2023AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 809/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Jayesh Vallabh Thakkar, 7, The Acit, Circle-2, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Aakpt6870D Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 810/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Mr. Bhavik Jayesh Thakkar, 7, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), Neelkanth, Behind Kalanagar, Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Agcpt7925M (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 811/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Smt. Jayshree J. Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Gangapur Road, Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Road, Nashik. Pan Aakpt6871D (Appellant) (Respondent) आयकर अपऩल सं. / Ita No. 812/Pun/2018 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Ku. Anisha Jayesh Thakkar, The Ito, Ward-2 (4), 7, Chopda Estate, Kalanagar Vs Kendriya Rajaswa Bhavan, Nashik–422 022 Maharashtra. Gadkari Chowk, Old Agra Pan Afzpt1110Q Road, Nashik. (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri M. G. Jasnani
Section 143(3)

…ce without even seeking adjournments at the cost of central exchequer. 5. In the light of above facts and having regard to rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules, 1963 and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of ‘Multiplan India Ltd.’, 38 ITD 320 (Del); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of ‘Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT’ 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of ‘CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another’ reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) wherein their Lordships have held that, ‘the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of ap…

Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra, Gariyaband vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Raipur

ITA 25/RPR/2022[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur28 Apr 2023AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 25/Rpr/2022 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2016-17 Adim Jati Sewa Sahakari Samiti Maryadit, Dhorra Ground Floor, Main Road Dhorra, Gariyaband(C.G)-493889 Pan: Aabaa7991C .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. Acit, Circle 1(1) Revenue Building, Civil Lines Raipur (C.G.)-492001 ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri G.S.Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Piyush Tripathi, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 234DSection 80PSection 80P(2)Section 80P(2)(a)Section 80P(2)(d)

…This view has been affirmed by the Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No.2985/Ahd/2010 vide their order dated 31.12.2013, wherein following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pv t. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.” 8 As observed hereinabove, the CIT(Appeals) had disposed off the appeal for non-prosecution and had failed to apply his mind to the issues which did arise from the impugned o…

Latesh Devi, Dadri vs. ITO Ward-2(1), Noida

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 315/DEL/2023[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2023AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Om Parkash, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250(6)

…m for the enforcement of right after the statutory limitation. 4.1 The judgments in the case of B.N. Chattarcharjee and Another, 118 ITR 461 (SC); Estate of Late Tukojiroa Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) 223 ITR 480) (MP); and CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) (38 ITD 320) were relied upon by the CIT(A) I.T.A No.315/Del/2023 3 while dismissing the appeal on the grounds of non prosecution. 5. We straightway refer to Section 250(6) of the Act which enjoins that the CIT(A) shall state the points for determination before it and the decision shall be rendered on such points alongwith reasons for the decision. Thus, i…