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.

Ravindra Kumar Rai, Jhansi vs. ITO, Chahatarpur

In the result, all these appeals of the assessee are allowed for statistical

ITA 686/AGR/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra04 Mar 2021AY 2012-13

Bench: : Shri Laliet Kumar & Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

Section 250(6)

…he ld. CIT(A) in paragraph No. 5 & 6 of the impugned orders, referring to the orders in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattahargee ITA No. 686/Agra/2018, 13 & 14/Agra/2020 2 & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Tribunal order in the matter of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del), has decided the appeals in limine, as the assessee could not avail reasonable opportunity of being heard on merits. It was submitted that the assessee needs one more opportunity of hearing to put up its cases on merits, as the ld. CIT(A) while deciding the appeals has not gone deep into the merits of additions. 3. Per contra the ld. DR rely…

Bipin Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward - 33(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 6575/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Mar 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singhasstt. Year 2011-12 Bipin Jain, Vs. Itp Ward-33(3) C-2/2226, New Delhi. Vasant Kunj, New Delhi-110 070 Pan Aelpj5333A (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Anil Jain, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri R.K. Gupta, Sr. DR

Section 142Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69

…compliance from the side of the assessee the Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi)and the decision of Hon’ble Gujarat High Court in the case of PCIT vs. Ashokji Chanduji Thakor in ITA No. 710/2018 dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 4.1 Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the notice so i…

Rajiv Vohra (HUF), New Delhi vs. DCIT Circle-11(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6096/DEL/2019[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Feb 2021AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Sainidr. B. R. R. Kumar(Through Video Conferencing) Ita No. 6096/Del/2019 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 Rajiv Vohra (Huf), Vs Dcit, 6/51, Old Rajinder Nagar, Circle-11(1), New Delhi-110060 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaihr6837C Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing: 18.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.02.2021

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

…ng posted was 12.06.2019, the date on which the assessee filed adjournment letter. The ld. CIT (A) passed order summarily rejecting the grounds of assessee on 13.06.2019 relying on the decision of the ITAT Delhi in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320. 3. Keeping in view the judgment of Hon’ble High Court of Madras in the case of Ritha Sabapathy vs. DCIT in ITA 169 of 2 Rajiv Vohra (HUF) 2019 dated 19.02.2019, we hereby remand the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT (A) for adjudication on merits of the case. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.…

Shri Virender Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3760/DEL/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(4)Section 68

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI (Through Video Conferencing) BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA Nos. 3759 & 3760/Del/2017 Asstt. Years 2009-10 & 2010-11 Shri Virender Singh Vs. ITO , Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Ward-2(5), Chamber No. 206-207, Ghaziabad. Ansal “Satyam”, RDC Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. PAN GBYPS7641A (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate Department by : Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 01/02/2021 Date of 01/02/2021 pronouncement O R D E R PER R.K. PANDA, AM The above two appeals filed b…

Shri Virender Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 3759/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2021AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: Shri Akhilesh Kumar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Prakash Dubey, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(4)Section 68

Anil Khosla, Faridabad vs. ITO Ward 54(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 6386/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2021AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K.Pandaassessment Year : 2013-14 Anil Khosla, Ito, 460/731, Badkhal Pal Road, Vs Ward-54(1), Faridabad, Haryana-121001. New Delhi. Pan-Aagpk5998M Appellant Respondent Appellant By None Respondent By Ms. Shivani Bansal, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 06.01.2021 Date Of Pronouncement 18.01.2021

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…re the CIT(A) despite service of notices, the CIT(A) following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. I have heard the Ld. Sr. DR and perused the orders of the Assessing Officer and the CIT(A). It is an admitted fact that despite opportunities granted by the CIT(A), there was no appearance from the side of t…

Dharampal Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 7(3), New Delhi

In the result the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4059/DEL/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2021AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 41(1)

…the appeal preferred by the assessee due to non prosecution by relying the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B N Bhattacharya 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). He has not decided the appeal on merit and the so-called decision on merit also is very cryptic in two/three lines. As per the provisions of section 250 (6) the order of the CIT(A) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision. However, in the…

Pramod Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 32(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 3943/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2021AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaasstt. Year 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vinod Sharma, Sr. DR

Section 133Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…of the assessee, Ld. CIT(A), following the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Mulltiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non prosecution. He , however, while deciding the appeal on merit has simply sustained the addition made by the AO in a cryptic order. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in the interest of justice, I deem it appropriate to restore this issue to the file of 3 the Ld. CIT(A) with a…

Pushpanjali Realtors Pvt. Ltd., Mumbai vs. ACIT - 15 (2)(2), Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 199/MUM/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai29 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy & Shri N.K. Pradhanआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 199/Mum/2019 (यनधाारण िर्ा / Assessment Year 2015-16) M/S Pushpanjali Realtors P. Ltd. The Asst. Commissioner Of 199, V.N. Sphere, 3 R D Floor, Anjali Income Tax, Circle- Apartments, Plot No.1, Sector-2, बनाम/ 15(2)(2), Mumbai Sanpada (W), Vs. Navi Mumbai-400 705 (अपीलाथी / Appellant) (प्रत्यथी/ Respondent) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan No. Aaecp6138R अपीलाथी की ओर से/ Appellant By : None प्रत्यथी की ओर से/ Respondent By : Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, Dr सुनिाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 22.12.2020 घोर्णा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 29.12.2020 आदेश / O R D E R श्री विकास अिस्थी, न्याययक सदस्य के द्िारा Per Vikas Awasthy, Jm: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against An Ex-Parte Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-24, Mumbai (In Short ‘The Cit(A)’) Dated 26.10.2018 For The Assessment Year 2015-16. 2. The Assessee In Appeal Has Assailed The Order Of Cit(A) Inter Alia On The Ground That The Order Has Been Passed In Ex-Parte Proceedings. M/S Pushpanjali Realtors P. Ltd, Ay:15-16 3. A Perusal Of The Impugned Order Reveals That The Cit(A) Has Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee In Limine In Ex-Parte Proceedings By Following The Decision Of Delhi Tribunal In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. Reported As (1991) 38 Itd 320. Thereafter, Cit(A) Proceeded To Decide The Appeal Of The Assessee On Merits As Well. However, While Deciding The Appeal On Merits, The Cit(A) Has Merely Reproduced The Findings Of His Predecessor, Given In Assessment Year 2011-12 & Followed The Same Stating It To Be Identical Issue.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai, DR

Section 143(3)

…Ltd, AY:15-16 3. A perusal of the impugned order reveals that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine in ex-parte proceedings by following the decision of Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. reported as (1991) 38 ITD 320. Thereafter, CIT(A) proceeded to decide the appeal of the assessee on merits as well. However, while deciding the appeal on merits, the CIT(A) has merely reproduced the findings of his predecessor, given in Assessment Year 2011-12 and followed the same stating it to be identical issue. 4. Ms. Shreekala Pardeshai appearing on behalf of the Revenue…

Hussainullah Hafiz, Burhanpur vs. ITO, Burhanpur

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

ITA 31/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore28 Dec 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Hon’Ble Kul Bharat & Hon’Ble Manish Borad

…made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of 2 Hussainullah Hafiz the reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India 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/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent power…

Shri Rishi Sagar, Khanna vs. ITO, W-III, Khanna

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

ITA 515/CHANDI/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh16 Dec 2020AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 515/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10 Sh. Rishi Sagar, The Ito, Ward-Iii, बनाम Jethi Nagar,St. No. 7, Khanna Malerkotla Road, Near Satk Filling Station, Khanna "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Bcpps4753N अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt.Chanderkanta, Sr.DR

…IENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. ITA No. 515Chd/2018- Shri Rishi Sagar, Khanna 2 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. 3. 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 prepa…

Shri Ramasamy Ravichandran, Vellore vs. ITO, Ward - 1, Vellore

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

ITA 2346/CHNY/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Dec 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri G.Manjunathaआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.No.2346/Chny/2019 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17) Mr. Ramasamy Ravichandran Vs Income Tax Officer , 341 Phase-1 New No.146, Ward-I, South Avenue Road, Sathuvachari, Vellore. Vellore-632 001. Pan:Afypr 3977G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Mr. Suresh Periasamy,JCITFor Respondent: 03.11.2020

…sessee could not file any details. Therefore, the learned CIT(A) left with no option has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee ex-parte by following certain judicial precedents including the decision of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) P.Ltd 38 ITD 320(Del) and confirmed the additions made by the Assessing Officer towards additions 5 made on account of unsecured loans. Aggrieved by the order passed by the learned CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 5. Learned A.R for the assessee referring to grounds of appeal filed before us submitted that learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed…

Rohit Chechi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3525/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

…the assessee, at the outset, submitted that sufficient opportunity was not granted by the Ld. CIT(A) for hearing of the case. Further, the Ld. CIT(A) while deciding the issue has followed the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya 118 ITR 461 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukoji Rao Holder vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP). Further, while deciding the appeal on merit, the Ld. CIT(A) has also rejected the various additional evidences fil…

Rohit Chechi, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 61(2), New Delhi

In the result, both the Assessee’s Appeals are allowed for statistical

ITA 3524/DEL/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: Sh. Subhash Gupta, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Ajay Kumar, Sr. DR

M/S. Techno Services, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 63(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1986/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 Nov 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Smt. Madhumita Roy, Jm ]

Section 143(3)

…hearing of the instant appeal, none appeared on behalf of the appellant. However from the records, it appears that the impugned order dated 27-06-2018 was passed ex parte. The Ld. CIT(A), following the judgment of CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) decided the matter ex parte by confirming the order passed by the Ld.AO since none appeared on behalf of the appellant. It, therefore, appears admittedly that for some reasons of the other the case of the appellant was not duly presented before the Ld. CIT(A). Hence, for the ends of justice, we find it fit and proper to set aside the issue t…

Aasl India Finvest Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4418/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Aasl India Finvest Pvt. Ltd., Vs Ito, Kp-23, 3Rd Floor, Ward 1(1), Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaeca2150L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Nipun Mittal, Ca Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 19Th March, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Assessee In Its Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Disallowance/Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Shri Nipun Mittal, CAFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…CIT(A) despite service of notice, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) and various other decisions, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the materials available on record. We find, despite number of opportunities grant…

Tushar Sharma, Sikandrabad vs. ITO Ward - 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 4263/DEL/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Tushar Sharma, Vs Ito, C/O Rra Taxindia, Ward 3(3), D-28, South Extn. Part –I, Bulandshahr. New Delhi. Pan : Asqps4748F (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Ms Monika Ghai Advocate Revenue By : Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 18.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 29Th March, 2019 Of The Cit(A), Ghaziabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. The Assessee In Its Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Ex Parte Order Of The Cit(A) In Sustaining The Disallowance/Addition Made By The Ao.

For Appellant: Ms Monika Ghai AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Vipul Kashyap, Sr.DR

Section 147Section 148

…er of opportunities granted by the CIT(A), the assessee did not appear before her and was filing only adjournment applications for which the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC) and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CIT, 223 ITR 480, dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. However, she has also decided the appeal on merit and sustained th…

Eastern Resorts P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-8(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 2495/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2020AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2014-15 Eastern Resorts P. Ltd., Vs Ito, 13/34, Wea, 4Th Floor, Ward-8(1), Main Arya Samaj Road, New Delhi. Karol Bagh, Delhi. Pan : Aabce0824C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Umesh Lakyash, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2020 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.11.2020 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 14Th January, 2019 Of The Cit(A)-15, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2014- 15. 2. The Assessee In Its Various Grounds Of Appeal Has Challenged The Order Of The Cit(A) Sustaining Various Additions Made By The Ao. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is A Company & Derives Income From Commission. It Filed Its Return Of Income On 27.11.2014 Declaring An Income Of Rs.2,500/-. The Ao Completed The Assessment U/S 143(3) Of The Act At A Total Income Of Rs.1,90,02,500/- Wherein He Made Addition Of Rs.1,90,00,000/- Being Unexplained Cash Deposit In The Bank Account Of The Assessee. Since None Appeared Before The Cit(A) Despite Number Of Opportunities Granted, The Ld.Cit(A), In The Ex Parte Order Passed By Him, Upheld The Addition Made By The Ao & Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Umesh Lakyash, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)

…at the time of hearing. However, after hearing the ld. DR and on perusal of the record, we find, the ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee has basically relied on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITR 320 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar reported in 223 ITR 480 and various other decisions. He has not decided the appeal on merit which he was supposed to. As per the provisions of the Income-tax Act, the ld.CIT(A) has to decide the appeal on merit and cannot dismiss the appeal on…

M/S. Avvas Infotech Private Limited, Bengaluru vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle- 1(1)(1), Bengaluru

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

ITA 2265/BANG/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri George George K, Jm & Shri B.R.Baskaran, Am

For Appellant: Sri.B.T.Shetty, CAFor Respondent: Sri.S.Sundar Rajan, JCIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 154

…d an appeal to the first appellate authority. Since the assessee did not appear before the first appellate authority, ex parte order was passed by relying on the order of the Delhi Benches of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 7. Aggrieved by the order of the CIT(A), the assessee has filed this appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Counsel for the assessee has filed a paper book enclosing inter alia therein Form No.AS 26, TDS details made by the assessee’s clients, copy of the financial statement for the relevant assessment year, etc. The learned Counsel for…

Smt. G.P. Lakshmi, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- 1(2)(4), Bangalore

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

ITA 1956/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore22 Oct 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri A. K. Garodia

For Appellant: Shree Sandip, C. AFor Respondent: Smt. R. Premi, JCIT DR

…qua the assessee and as per this order, and as per this order, learned CIT (A) has not decided the appeal on merit and he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by following the tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. And this is settled position by now that even if the assessee has not appeared, the appeal should be decided on merit and therefore, this matter has to be remanded to CIT (A) for a decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. Learned AR of the assessee agreed to this proposition put forward by the bench. Le…