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 367,282 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.

Smt. Vasundhara, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1288/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Sept 2019AY 2009-10

Section 143Section 271

…the orders of the authorities below. We find the Ld. CITA) dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee on account of non appearance before him by applying the ratio laid down by the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Private Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattacharjee reported in 118 ITR 461. However, he has not decided the appeal on merit which he is required to do. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee also explained the reasons for non appearance before the CIT(A) and pleaded that given an opportunity the assessee is in a positio…

Laxmi Narayan, Sheopur vs. ITO, Shivpuri

In the result, the appeal is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 134/AGR/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

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

Section 144

…t. 3. Per contra, the ld. DR has submitted that the assessee was not vigilantly pursuing the assessment proceedings and the appeal proceedings and hence, the CIT(A) has decided the matter by applying the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320. 3 4. We have heard the rival contentions of the parties and perused the record. In paragraph No. 5, the delay and latches on the part of the assessee are conspicuous and we reprimand the same. However, considering the object of the tax adjudication, i.e., the tax is required to be collected from the person who is liable to pay it, and keeping…

Young Bodhisatya Society India, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 525/LKW/2018[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Young Bodhisatya Society V. Cit (Exemption) India (Ybs India) Lucknow Jetvan, E-367, Sector I, Lda Colony, Kanpur Road, Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaaay1393B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 22 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 06 09 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow, Dated 23/4/2018, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Approval Under Section 80G(5)(Vi) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 22/8/2019, But None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issuance Of Notice Through Rpad, Which Has Been Returned Unserved By The Postal Authorities With The Remark “The Door Of The Addressee’S House Is Under Lock For A Long Period. At Present No One Reside At The Given Address. Hence Returned.” The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee On The Address Given In Form No.36. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R

Section 80G(5)(vi)

…e is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we ITA No.525/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 2 hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. The assessee may, howeve…

M/S Programme Support Unit Foundation, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 240/LKW/2018[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R

Section 12ASection 80G(5)(i)

…ing, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. As such, we hold that the appeals are liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) ITA No.239 & 240/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 2 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for…

M/S. Programme Support Unit Foundation, Lucknow vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemptions), Lucknow

In the result, the appeals of the assessee stand dismissed

ITA 239/LKW/2018[NA]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow06 Sept 2019

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoor

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R

Section 12ASection 80G(5)(i)

Shri Rohit Ramanlal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-13(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, all the four appeals of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 3046/AHD/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Sept 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Parting, It Is Appropriate To Add That In Case The Assessee Is Able To Show That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Non-Representation On The Date Of Hearing, It Would Be At Liberty If So Advised To Pray For A Recall Of This Order.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Section 144

…the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. 4. In the result, all the four appeal…

M/S. Buns Hospitality Pvt. Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income- Tax, Circle- 1(1)(2), Bengalore

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

ITA 574/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore28 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2015-16 M/S. Buns Hospital Pvt. Ltd., # 11, A Wing, 8Th Floor, The Acit, Divyasree Building, Vs. Circle – 1 [1] [2], O’Shaugnessy Road, Bangalore. Bangalore – 560 025. Pan: Aaecb6969L Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri V. Srinivasan, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ujjwal Kumar, JCIT (DR)

Section 234Section 68

…CIT(A) is ex-parte qua the assessee and in this ex-parte order also, the issue was not decided on merit and the appeal of the assessee was dismissed in limine by following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320. He submitted that this is by now a settled position of law that even if an order is passed by any quasi judicial authority ex-parte, then also, the issue should be decided on merit. He submitted that since this was not done, the order of CIT (A) should be set aside and the matter should be restored back to the file of ld. CIT(A) for decision on m…

Shri Narendrabhai G. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in 4

ITA 195/AHD/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Waseem Ahmed1. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 194/Ahd/2018 2. आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 195/Ahd/2018 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Years : 2011-12 & 2012-13 Respectively)

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR

…the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P)Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed a reasonable cause for non- representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty, if so advised, ITA Nos.194 & 195/Ahd/2018 Shri Narendrabhai G.Patel vs.DC…

Shri Narendrabhai G. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Central Circle-2(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in 4

ITA 194/AHD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri Anand Kumar, Sr.DR

…the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P)Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed a reasonable cause for non- representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty, if so advised, ITA Nos.194 & 195/Ahd/2018 Shri Narendrabhai G.Patel vs.DC…

Narainshree Foundation, Jalaun vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Exemption), Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 627/LKW/2018[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow22 Aug 2019AY 2018-19

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jain & Shri T. S. Kapoorassessment Year: N.A. Narainshree Foundation V. Cit (Exemptions) 1001, Rajendra Nagar Lucknow Station Road, Orai Jalaun Tan/Pan:Aactn6475E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Shri A. K. Bar, Cit (Dr) Date Of Hearing: 19 08 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 22 08 2019 O R D E R Per A. D. Jain, V.P.: This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit (Exemption), Lucknow, Dated 19/7/2018, Rejecting The Application Of The Assessee For Registration Under Section 12A(1) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 19/8/2019, But None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Despite Issuance Of Notice Through Rpad, Which Has Not Returned Unserved. Since The Assessee Did Not Appear Despite Having Knowledge Of The Date Of Hearing, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal. As Such, We Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non- Prosecution. In This Regard, We Place Reliance Upon The Following Case Laws:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri A. K. Bar, CIT (DR)

Section 12A(1)

…e is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, we hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non- prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon the following case laws:- ITA No.627/LKW/2018 Page 2 of 2 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008), 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee and Another, 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non- prosecution. The assessee may, howeve…

Ulaganathan Meyappan, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 2482/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ’सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI "ी धु"वु" आर.एल. रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य एवं "ी एस. जयरामन, लेखा सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI DUVVURU R.L. REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. JAYARAMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2481 & 2482/Chny/2017 "नधा रण वष /Assessment Years: 2010-11 & 2011-12 Shri Ulagappan Meyappan, Vs. The Asst. Commissioner- C/o. Shri S.Sridhar, A.S.Sriraman, of Income Tax, New No.14, Old No.82, Flat No.5, Company Circle-4(2), 1st Avenue, Indira Nagar, Adyar, Chennai. Chennai-600 020. [PAN: AACPM 5155 E] (अपीलाथ#/Appellant) ($%यथ#/Respo…

Ulaganathan Meyappan, Chennai vs. ACIT Company Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are partly

ITA 2481/CHNY/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Duvvuru R.L. Reddy & Shri S. Jayaraman

For Appellant: Mr. R.Clement Ramesh-

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

Madhuvan Restaurant & Bar, Ranga Reddy vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 568/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2019AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Satya Prashanth Pinisetty

Section 143(3)

…THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCH “A”, HYDERABAD BEFORE SMT. P. MADHAVI DEVI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2015-16 Madhuvan Restaurant & Bar, vs. Income-tax Officer, Ranga Reddy District. Ward – 11(4), Hyderabad. PAN – AAUFM 5259 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Satya Prashanth Pinisetty Date of hearing : 02-08-2019 Date of pronouncement : 09-08-2019 O R D E R PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M.: This appeal filed by assessee is directed against the order of CIT(A) – 6, Hyderabad, dated 19/09/2018 for AY 2013-14. 2. When this…

B Siddulamma, Chittoor vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1), Tirupati

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is not admitted and dismissed in limine

ITA 556/HYD/2019[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad08 Aug 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahman

For Appellant: NONEFor Respondent: Shri C. Rajeswara Reddy, DR

…smiss the appeal for non prosecution as held by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise appeal No. 62 of 2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we have no option but to dismiss this appeal of the assessee as not maintainable. 2.1. However, assessee is at liberty to seek recall of this order by way of filing an M.A., showing sufficient reasons as to why the defects in appeal papers could not be rectified and also as to…

Green Overseas, New Delhi vs. ITO Ward 63(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 1462/DEL/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Aug 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Green Overseas, Vs. Ito, 2525/7, Bagichi Raghunath, Ward 63(5), New Delhi - 110066. New Delhi. Pan: Aagfg4970R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 05.08.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 07.08.2019

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.DR

Section 143(3)Section 68

…an addition of Rs.9,66,000/- u/s 68 of the IT Act. Since there was non-appearance before the CIT(A) and there was a delay in filing the appeal before him, the ld.CIT(A), following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee, 118 ITR 461 (SC), dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. 4. Aggrieved with such order of the CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. None appeared on behalf of the assessee despite service of notice. However, since the ld.CIT(A) pass…

M/S Ambabhai K Patel, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(4), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1316/RJT/2010[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot06 Aug 2019AY 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.R. Chauhan, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…t the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. 4. In the result, the appeal of the A…

Smt. Daxaben Rajendrabhai Patel, Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle- 5, Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2184/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Jul 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roysmt. Daxaben Rajendrabhai Patel, Vs. Dcit, B/84, Balaji Nagar Society, Vip Circle – 5, Road, Karelibaug, Aaykar Bhavan, Racecourse Vadodara – 390 018. Circle, Vadodara – 390 007. [Pan No. Adhpp 5909 R] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri S. K. Dev, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar-vs-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. However the assessee is at liberty to apply for the recall of the order within the prescribed time after furnishing the suitable reasons for non- appearance.…

Chandrakumar K Jain, Mumbai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2015-2016

ITA 6530/MUM/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri G. Manjunatha (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2015-16 Shri Chandrakumar K. Jain, The Ito 19(1)(3), Flat No. 1101, 11Th Floor, Matru Mandir, Taradeo Road, Dr. Nanasaheb Deshmukh Mumbai - 400007 Building, V.P. Road, Girgaon, Vs. Mumbai - 400004 Pan: Aafpj8043F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Harshad Doshi (AR)For Respondent: Shri Ajit Kumar Srivastava (CIT DR)

Section 143Section 144

…Year: 2015-16 appeal of the assessee by relying on the judgments of Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CIT 223 ITR 480 (MP) and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Delhi). 7. As is apparent from the impugned order that the ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee holding that the assessee is not interested in pursuing its case. Even if it is assumed that the assessee did not appear despite service of notice, the Ld. CIT(A) should have decided the appeal on merits taking into consideration the en…

M/S Lj Victoria Properties Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 571/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member Ita No.571(Bang)/2019 (Assessment Year : 2015-16) M/S L J Victoria Properties Pvt.Ltd., No.150, 1St Floor, Embassy Point, Infantry Road, Bangalore-560 001 Pan No.Aabcl5265A Appellant Vs The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(1)(1), Bangalore Respondent Appellant By : Sri Pranit N Shah, Ca Revenue By : Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.Cit

For Appellant: Sri Pranit N Shah, CAFor Respondent: Shri R.N.Siddappaji, Addl.CIT

…before Ld.CIT (A). Before us, assessee has not given any bona fides reason for not appearing before Ld.CIT (A). 3. It is observed that Ld.CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal by following decision of this Tribunal in case of CIT vs Multiplan India Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320. 3.1 In our considered opinion Ld.CIT(A) ought to have decided the issue on merits. However, we also note that assessee was not inclined to pursue appeal before Ld.CIT(A). As we set aside this issue back to Ld.CIT (A) we levy cost of Rs.5000/- on assessee for non-appearance before Ld.CIT (A) despite several notices being issued. Assessee is direct…

M/S Aaryan Hitech Steels India Private Limited, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-1(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 85/BANG/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jul 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri B.R.Baskaran & Smt Beena Pillai, Judical Member

For Appellant: Shri Rishabh Singhvi, CAFor Respondent: Sri R.N.Siddapaji, Addl.CIT

Section 133(6)Section 143(2)

…24 as returned by the assessee in its ITR; The appellant prays accordingly. It has been submitted by Ld. AR that the impugned order passed by Ld. CIT (A) has been dismissed for nonappearance by applying decision of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt.Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320. It is observed that Ld. CIT (A) has not passed a speaking order on merits. We therefore set aside the issue back to learn CIT (A) with a direction to file a detailed order on merits considering the details/evidences filed by assessee. Accordingly grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. ITA No.85(B)/2019 5 In the resul…