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 367,181 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 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.

M/S Pavan Traders, Ballari vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1, Ballari

In the result, the appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1609/BANG/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Apr 2022AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Ms. Padmavathy Sassessment Year : 2008-09 M/S. Pavan Traders, Dcit, Vs. C/O. M/S Raghavendra Filling Station, Circle – 1, Moka Road, Ballari. Ballari – 583 103. Pan : Abefs 0812 R Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri. B. S. Balachandran, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Priyadarshini Mishra, Addl. CIT(DR)(ITAT), Bengaluru

Section 143(3)Section 260A

…04.10.2016 20.10.2016 at 12.15 P.M 3. Since there was no response from the assessee, the CIT(A) proceeded to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution by relaying upon the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). The CIT(A) also observed that from the statement of facts and grounds of appeal, there was no sufficient material to allow any relief to the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), assessee has filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. We have heard the rival submissions. The Delhi High Court in the case of Golden Times Ser…

Shashank Jaiswal, Gorakhpur vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Gorakhpur

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

ITA 99/VNS/2019[2014-2015]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi15 Apr 2022AY 2014-2015

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2014-15 Shashank Jaiswal, V. Income Tax Officer, H. No. 43, Jetepur North, Mansa Bagh, Ward-2(2), Gorakhpur Gorakhpur, U.P. Pan-Ahppj6510L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Adv Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 18.04.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 18.04.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…rights. This principle is embodied in well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT”. In view of the above mentioned fats and by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in case of Estate of Late TukojiRaoHolkar vs. CWT (1997) reported in 223 ITR 480 the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.” 6. Thus, it is clear that the CIT(A) has not decided the appeal of the assessee on merits, but the same was dismissed in limine when nobody has attended the proceedings before the…

Ruchi Mahila Mandal, Chhatarpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Chhatarpur

In the result, assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 194/JAB/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur07 Apr 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Sanjay Arora, Hon’Ble & Shri Manomohan Das, Hon'Ble

For Appellant: Shri Dhiraj Ghai, FCAFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 139DSection 147Section 148(1)Section 194CSection 271BSection 44A

…l filed by the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) referred the following case laws in dismissing the assessee’s appeal: (i) CIT v. B N Bhattacharjee & Ors., 118 ITR 461 (ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) (iii) CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2.7 Aggrieved, the assessee is in further appeal before us. 3. We have heard the parties, and perused the material on record. 3.1 We are not in agreement with the ld. CIT(A) about the dismissal of the appeal on the ground of non-prosecution. His order would therefore require being set aside for that reason. In our view, despite non-appearan…

The Raibag Taluka Primary Co-Operative Agricultural & Rural Development Bank Limited, Belgavi vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Belgaum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of our aforesaid observations

ITA 349/PAN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji31 Mar 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood & Shri Jamlappa D Battullआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 349/Pan/2017 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-2013 The Raibag Taluka Primary Co-Operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Limited Raibag, Tal. Raibag, Dist. Belgavi. Pan : Aaaat4138K .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Belgavi ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Shivanand Halbhavi, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sourabh Nayak, Sr. DR

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 80P

…fore him, the CIT(Appeals) drawing support from the order of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan The Raibag Taluka Primary Co-operative Agriculture & Rural Development Bank Ltd. Vs. ITO 4 ITA No. 349/PAN/2017 – A.Y 2012-13 India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ( Delhi) dismissed the appeal on account of non-prosecution of the same. At the same time, it was summarily observed by the CIT(Appeals) that the material available on record did not suffice to allow any relief to the assessee. 4. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(A) has carried the matter in appeal before us. At the time of…

Gtv Tech Sez P.Ltd, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward-1(4), New Delhi

ITA 273/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Mar 2022AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. G.S.Pannu, Hon’Ble & Sh. Anubhav Sharmaita No.273 /Del/2019 (Assessment Year : 2010-11)

Section 144Section 148

…which the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that- “Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it”. The Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. As reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non- prosecution of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. In view of these facts, I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO’s order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed and the addition made by the AO is confirmed. Even on merits, it is observed from the assess…

Shri Pravinbhai Harilal Shah, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

Appeal is disposed of with statistical purposes

ITA 1822/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…ITO Asst.Year –2015-16 though on a number of occasions the matter was fixed for hearing. Finally for want of prosecution the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal relying on the judgment passed in the matter of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., reported in (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). Hence, the instant appeal before us. 3. Admittedly, this appeal is against an ex-parte order passed by the Ld. CIT(A). It is also a fact that number of occasions none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the First Appellate Authority. However, in terms of the statutory provision under Section 250(6) of the Act the Ld. CIT(A) is to dis…

Shri Pravinbhai Harilal Shah, Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-3(1)(3), Vadodara

Appeal is disposed of with statistical purposes

ITA 1804/AHD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Mar 2022AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Pramod M. Jagtap & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

Capital Broadways P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-5(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 9263/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Mar 2022AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraआ.अ.सं/.I.T.A No.9263/Del/2019 िनधा"रणवष"/Assessment Year: 2011-12 बनाम Capital Broadways P. Ltd. Ito 26 A, Mig Flats, Vs. Ward 5(3) Motia Khan, Paharganj, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan No. Aadcc4481B अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

…ave also perused the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals) and noticed that the appeal was dismissed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for I.T.A.No.9263/Del/2019 non-compliance by the assessee following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320. 3. On a query from the Bench the Ld. DR has no serious objection in sending back the matter to the Ld. CIT(Appeals) for deciding on merits. 4. On hearing the Ld. DR, we are of the view that this appeal should go back to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits. Accordingly, this appeal is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(…

Abhay Kumar Shahi, Deoria vs. ITO, Ward - 3(4), Deoria

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

ITA 125/VNS/2020[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Varanasi23 Mar 2022AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri.Vijay Pal Raoassessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Abhay Kumar Shahi, V. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Shahi Brick Field, Salempur, Ward-3(4), Deoria Deoria, U.P. Pan-Bipps5693R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Sh. Subhash Chand & Sh. Ashutosh Bhardwaj, Advocates Respondent By: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R. Date Of Hearing: 23.03.2022 Date Of Pronouncement: 23.03.2022

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Chand & Sh. AshutoshFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Singh, Sr. D.R

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 44ASection 68

…ghts. This principle is embodied in well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENINUNT”. In view of the above mentioned facts and by placing reliance on decision of Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and decision of Hon'ble M.P. High Court in case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs. CWT (1977) reported in 223 ITR 480 the present appeal to be dismissed.” 5. Since, the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution therefore, the same is not in accordance with the provisions of section 250 of the Income Tax…

Sri Tarakeswar Pandey, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1756/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2022AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Shri Manish Borad, Am ]

…eans effectively pursuing it and the law does not help a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. Liberty is also given to the assessee to move appropriate application for recalling this order 2 Sri Tarakeswar Pandey AY 2012-13 if assessee has just cause for not appearing/representing before us, which may be considered by the Tribunal on its own merit. 7. In the result, the appeal…

Florence Education Trust, Ahmedabad vs. ITO (Exemption)-1, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 618/AHD/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad04 Jan 2022AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Shri Jimi Patel, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R

Section 12Section 12ASection 143(1)Section 154

…ITA No.618/Ahd/2019 A.Y. 2014-15 Page 1 of 3 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND Ms. SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Conducted through Virtual Court) Assessment Year: 2014-15 Florence Education Trust, vs. The Income Tax Officer 121, Nelson KG School, Exemption-1, Ahmedabad. B/H Gopal Towers, Maninagar, Ahmedabad. [PAN – AAATF 0206 H] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Jimi Patel, Advocate Respondent by : Shri Anand Kumar, Sr. D.R. Date of hearing : 09.12.2021 Date of pronouncement : 04.01.2022 O R D E R PER SUCH…

M/S City Lounge Retails (India) Pvt Ltd., Mumbai vs. ITO 15(1)(3), Mumbai

The appeal is disposed of for non prosecution

ITA 1190/MUM/2020[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai23 Dec 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Raghunath Ramble (Jm) & Shri Prashant Maharishi (Am)

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271Section 37

…/-. 06. Against this order of the penalty the assessee preferred an appeal before the learned CIT - A wherein the appeal of the assessee was dismissed for non prosecution applying the decision of the coordinate bench in case of Multiplan India private limited 38 ITD 320 (1991) (Delhi). 07. Therefore assessee is aggrieved with that order and has preferred this appeal before us. 08. Before us, despite notice, none appeared on behalf of the assessee. On earlier two occasions also none appeared on behalf of the assessee. Therefore the issue is decided on the merits of the case as per facts available on record. 09. Th…

Mohd. Sulaman Farooqui, Pratapgarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Pratapgarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5/ALLD/2021[2016-2017]Status: DisposedITAT Allahabad20 Dec 2021AY 2016-2017

For Appellant: Mr. Praveen Godbole, C.AFor Respondent: Mr. A.K. Singh, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…. At the time of hearing, the learned AR of the assessee has submitted that in Ground No. 2, the assessee has challenged the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) while applying the decision in the case of Commissioner Of Income-Tax vs Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 and not decided the appeal of the assessee on merit. Thus, the learned AR has submitted that the impugned order of the CIT(A) may be set aside and the matter may be remanded to the record of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication of the same on merits after giving one more opportunity of hearing to the assessee. 6. On the other hand, learned DR has sub…

M/S. Khyati Chemicals Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. Dy. CIT, (OSD), Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 779/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 884/Ahd/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 & आयकर अपील सं./Ita No. 779/Ahd/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/S Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(Osd), A/7, 4Th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. Pan: Aaack6277E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’ D’’ BENCH, AHMEDABAD (CONDUCTED THROUGH VIRTUAL COURT AT AHMEDABAD) BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT And SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 884/AHD/2014 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-05 And आयकर अपील सं./ITA No. 779/AHD/2015 िनधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2011-12 M/s Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., D.C.I.T(OSD), A/7, 4th Floor, Safai Profitire, Vs. Circle-4, Opp. Auda Garden, Ahmedabad. Prahladnagar, Corporate Road, Satellite, Ahmedabad-380015. PAN: AAACK6277E (Applicant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue b…

M/S. Khyati Chemicals Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT(OSD)-I, Circle-4, Ahmedabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 884/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2021AY 2004-05

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Purushottam Kumar, Sr.D.R

Section 28Section 36(1)Section 36(1)(iii)

Ashu Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO Ward - 1(1), Ghaziabad

Appeal are dismissed

ITA 9511/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Dec 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat[Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashu Tyagi Vs Ito C/O. Sanjeev Anand & Associates 77, Ward-1 (1) Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh Ahqpt9609R Appellant Respondent Appellant By Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, Ca Respondent By Shri Om Prakash, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 08.12.2021

Section 147Section 250(2)Section 69

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI “SMC” BENCH: NEW DELHI (THROUGH VIDEO CONFERENCING) BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year : 2011-12] Ashu Tyagi vs ITO C/o. Sanjeev Anand & Associates 77, Ward-1 (1) Navyug Market, Ghaziabad Ghaziabad, Uttar Pradesh Uttar Pradesh AHQPT9609R APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by Shri Sanjeev Agarwal, CA Respondent by Shri Om Prakash, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 08.12.2021 Date of Pronouncement 08.12.2021 ORDER PER KUL BHARAT, JM : This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)- Ghaziabad dated 10/10/2019 pertaining to Assessment…

Jayaram Gunasekar, Chennai vs. DCIT Non Corporate Circle 12(1), Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is treated as

ITA 2800/CHNY/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Nov 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V.Durga Rao & Shri G.Manjunatha

For Appellant: Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CITFor Respondent: 28.10.2021

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 263Section 54Section 54FSection 54F(1)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘ए’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी वी.दुगा" राव, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी जी.मंजुनाथ, लेखा सद"य के सम$ BEFORE SHRI V.DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI G.MANJUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2800/Chny/2018 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13) Mr. Jayaram Gunasekar Vs The Deputy Commissioner of C/o. Jayashree Enterprises Income Tax, 3,Godown Street, Non-Corporate Ward-12(1) Chennai-600 001. Chennai-6. PAN: AAVPG 6909P (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : Mr. Anandd Babunath, FCA अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Mr. AR.V.Sreenivasan,…

Niho Construction Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(2), New Delhi

Appeal is disposed of in accordance

ITA 99/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Oct 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: Shri Raj Kumar, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Jain, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 68

…r earlier years serve as guidance but are not binding. From the above facts, it therefore, appears that appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. In this view, I find support from the following decisions: In the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (ITAT Delhi). (i) In the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT; 223 ITR (ii) 480 (MP) where while dismissing the reference made at the instance of the assessee in default, following observation was made in their order: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for pre…

Jagroshni (L/H of Late Anant Ram), New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 54(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6087/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Jagroshni (L/H Of Late Anant Ram), Vs. Ito, T-77, Sarai Kale Khan, Ward 54(5), East Hazrat Nizamuddin, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Anwpr8178H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 13.10.2021 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.10.2021 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 10(37)Section 250(6)Section 56(2)(viii)

…used the record. It is an admitted fact that the assessee did not appear before the CIT(A) for which he was constrained to pass the ex parte order by relying on the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do as per the provisions of section 250(6) of the Act, according to which, the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for 3 determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. Since the ld.CIT(A), in the ins…

Neo Vehicleaids Pvt Ltd, Delhi vs. ITO Ward 18(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 2100/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Oct 2021AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda[Assessment Year: 2014-15] M/S Neo Vehicleaids Private Income Tax Officer, Limited, Ward-18(1), D-48, Sector-63, Nodia- C.R. Building, 201301, U.P. New Delhi-110092 Pan-Aadcn7327H Assessee Revenue

Section 143(2)Section 250(6)

…ince, the assessee did not appear before the Ld. CIT(A) despite five opportunities granted, the Ld. CIT(A) in the ex-parte order passed by him, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee by relying on the following decisions:- I. CIT vs Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) II. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) III. New Diwan Oil Mils vs CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P & H) IV. CIT vs B.N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 7. Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 8. I have heard the ld. DR and perused the record. It is an…