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 367,302 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.

M/S Nalanda Builders & Developers I. Pvt. Ltd., Agra vs. DCIT Central Circle, Agra

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 35/AGR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Agra16 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

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

Section 114Section 27Section 68

…umstances as discussed above and in the absence of attendance, it is seen that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Accordingly, by applying the ratio laid down by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], this appeal filed by the appellant deserves to be dismissed on this score only. However, the case is discussed as per its merits. 5. Despite above, none appeared on behalf of the assessee before the ld. CIT(A). It was submitted by the assessee that an adjournment was requested on 28.11.2016. However, the ld. CIT(A) without considering the appl…

Ashoka Builders, Mumbai vs. ACIT RG 19(3), Mumbai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 2244/MUM/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai12 Jul 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon'Ble & Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Hon'Blem/S. Ashoka Builders V. The Asst. Cit Range – 19(3) 209-212, Veena Beena Piramal Chamber Turner Road, Bandra (W) Mumbai – 400012 Mumbai – 400 050 Pan: Aabfa 3175 B (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Hari Raheja Department By : Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Hari RahejaFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 133(6)

…at the assessee has no fault and there has been reasonable cause in appeal getting adjourned from time to time. The Ld.CIT(A) should not have disposed off the appeal exparte applying the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [38 ITD 320]. 5. Coming to the merits of the case, it is the submission of the Ld.Counsel for the assessee that similar addition has been made in the A.Y. 2010-11 where the very same amount was added and the Tribunal in ITA.No. 1647/Mum/2014 dated 28.03.2018 directed the Assessing Officer to verify the fact as to whether the very same amount was added in A.Y…

M/S Nandana Education Trust, Shimogga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Circle-1, Shimogga

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

ITA 1553/BANG/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Vivek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10(23)(c)Section 11(1)(a)Section 234A

…although the assessee did not appeal before ld. CIT(A) but even then ld. CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit instead of dismissing the appeals in limine by following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) and of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT as reported in 223 ITR 480. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by ld. CIT(A) in both the orders that inspite of several opportunities provided…

M/S Nandana Education Trust, Shimoga vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Incometax Circle-1, Shimoga

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

ITA 1552/BANG/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale

For Appellant: Shri A.R. Vivek, AdvocateFor Respondent: Dr. P.V. Pradeep Kumar, Addl. CIT (DR)
Section 10(23)(c)Section 11(1)(a)Section 234A

…although the assessee did not appeal before ld. CIT(A) but even then ld. CIT(A) should have decided the appeals on merit instead of dismissing the appeals in limine by following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) and of Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh rendered in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT as reported in 223 ITR 480. The ld. DR of revenue supported the order of ld. CIT(A). 5. We have considered the rival submissions. We find that it is noted by ld. CIT(A) in both the orders that inspite of several opportunities provided…

Shri Rajendra Prasad Borah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Guwahati

ITA 30/GTY/2006[1991-92]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 1991-92

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :1992-93

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 409

…] """"\ "Ȣ"ȣ""\ "Ȣ""", खंङपीठ "Ǖ"ȡ¡ ȡ"ȣ , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :1992-93 ACIT, Circle-1(1), V/s. Sri Rajendra Prasad Guwahati Borah, Sonamioni, Bhawan, Ulubari, Guwahati PAN No./GIR No. R-710DCIT Inv-2 \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant .. Ĥ×""ȸ/Respondent ITA No.29 & 30/Gau/2006 Assessment Years: 1990-91 & 1991-92 Sri Rajendra Prasad V/s. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Borah, Sonamioni, Saikia Commercial Bhawan, Ulubari, Complex, Guwahati Guwahati PAN No./GIR No. R-710DCIT Inv-2 \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant .. Ĥ×""ȸ/…

Shri Rajendra Prasad Borah, Guwahati vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Guwahati

ITA 29/GTY/2006[1990-91]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 1990-91

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :1992-93

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 409

…] """"\ "Ȣ"ȣ""\ "Ȣ""", खंङपीठ "Ǖ"ȡ¡ ȡ"ȣ , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :1992-93 ACIT, Circle-1(1), V/s. Sri Rajendra Prasad Guwahati Borah, Sonamioni, Bhawan, Ulubari, Guwahati PAN No./GIR No. R-710DCIT Inv-2 \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant .. Ĥ×""ȸ/Respondent ITA No.29 & 30/Gau/2006 Assessment Years: 1990-91 & 1991-92 Sri Rajendra Prasad V/s. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Borah, Sonamioni, Saikia Commercial Bhawan, Ulubari, Complex, Guwahati Guwahati PAN No./GIR No. R-710DCIT Inv-2 \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant .. Ĥ×""ȸ/…

Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle - 1(1), Guwahati vs. Shri Rajendra Prasad Borah, Guwahati

ITA 195/GTY/1996[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Guwahati10 Jul 2019AY 1992-93

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :1992-93

Section 13(2)Section 143(3)Section 409

…] """"\ "Ȣ"ȣ""\ "Ȣ""", खंङपीठ "Ǖ"ȡ¡ ȡ"ȣ , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL GUWAHATI BENCH, GUWAHATI Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :1992-93 ACIT, Circle-1(1), V/s. Sri Rajendra Prasad Guwahati Borah, Sonamioni, Bhawan, Ulubari, Guwahati PAN No./GIR No. R-710DCIT Inv-2 \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant .. Ĥ×""ȸ/Respondent ITA No.29 & 30/Gau/2006 Assessment Years: 1990-91 & 1991-92 Sri Rajendra Prasad V/s. ACIT, Circle-1(1), Borah, Sonamioni, Saikia Commercial Bhawan, Ulubari, Complex, Guwahati Guwahati PAN No./GIR No. R-710DCIT Inv-2 \ "Ȣ"ȡ"ȸ/Appellant .. Ĥ×""ȸ/…

Faisal Farook Vadgama, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 20(1)(4), Mumbai

ITA 2129/MUM/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai04 Jul 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri C.N Prasad & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2129/Mum/2018 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2010-11) बिाम/ Faisal Farooq Vadgama, Ito 20(1)(1), 2Nd Floor, Piramal Chambers, 203 White Angel, Mumbai V. 10, Maratha Mandir Road, Mumbai-400027 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan: Abvpv2284R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. Assessee By: Shri. Faisal F. Vagama(Assessee In Person) Shri. Rajiv Gubgaotra (Dr) Revenue By: सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 06.06.2019 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Assessee, Being Ita No. 2129/Mum/2018, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2017, Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-32, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”) In Appeal Number Cit(A)-32/It-502/Ito-20(1)(4)/15-16, For Assessment Year 2010-11, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 01.02.2016 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) R.W.S. 147 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2010-11. I.T.A. No.2129/Mum/2018

For Appellant: Shri. Faisal F. Vagama(Assessee in Person)
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ttend the proceedings. The Tribunal's rejection of the assessee's petition without further opportunity of being heard was upheld by the Bombay High Court. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble Delhi court in the case of Multiplan India P. Ltd 38 ITD 320(1991)(Delhi). In the light of the facts of the case and the decisions of the cases cited above, I dismiss the appeal. 4 | P a g e I.T.A. No.2129/Mum/2018 6.2 Thus, in nutshell learned CIT(A) upheld re-assessment order dated 01.02.2016 passed by the AO and consequentially 100% of the alleged bogus purchases which were disallowed and added to the…

Mrs. Jayashree N Bilgikar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3)(3), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 923/BANG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 Jul 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No. 923/Bang/2019 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Smt. Jayashree N. Bilgikar, N B Bhel P.O.., Malleswaram Quarters, A & B Sector, Bhel Township, Opp. Mysore Lamps, Malleswaram, Bangalore – 560 012. Pan : Ahhpb 4134 E Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – I(3)(3), Bangalore. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri. Ganesh R. G., Jr. Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 04.07.2019. Date Of Pronouncement : .07.2019. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Bangalore, Dated 28.02.2019 For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing Today I.E., 04.07.2019. It Is Seen From The Record That The Notice Fixing Hearing Today Sent By Rpad By The Registry Has Been Returned Unserved With The Noting “Incomplete Address”. In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Laid Out Above, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Ganesh R. G., Jr. Standing Counsel

…“VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 4th July, 2019. (LALIET KUMAR) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt.04.07.2019. *NS 3 Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File.…

Shri Jagdishchandra M. Bhatt, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3027/AHD/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad03 Jul 2019AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royjagdishchandra M. Bhatt, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Prop. Pratham Perfumery, Ward – 5(4), 28B, Ashirwad Society, Baroda. Harni Warasia Ring Road, Board.

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

…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.…

M/S. Dhanlaxmi Solvex (P) Ltd., Indore vs. The DCIT (Tpo)-I, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 169/IND/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Manish Boradassessment Year: 2014-15

…ance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, 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…

M/S Pushpak Products Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Wra-5(1)(3), Bangalore

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

ITA 1531/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Jun 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.K. Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadalem/S.Pushpak Products Pvt. Ltd. No.303, Pushpak Mes Ring Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru-560 013. Pan:Aadcp 2169 H Vs. … Appellant Income-Tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(3), Bengaluru. … Respondent

For Appellant: Shri S.Sridhar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri K.R.Subash, JCIT(DR)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 271(1)(c)Section 274Section 35

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ BENCH, BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI A.K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER and SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JUDICIAL MEMBER M/s.Pushpak Products Pvt. Ltd. No.303, Pushpak MES Ring Road, Jalahalli, Bengaluru-560 013. PAN:AADCP 2169 H Vs. … Appellant Income-tax Officer, Ward 5(1)(3), Bengaluru. … Respondent Appellant by : Shri S.Sridhar, Advocate. Respondent by : Shri K.R.Subash, JCIT(DR) Date of hearing: 06/06/2019 Date of pronouncement: 26/06/2019 O R D E R Per PAVAN KUMAR GADALE, JM : The assessee has filed the appeal against the order of the CIT(A)-5, Bengaluru, passed u/s 271(1)(c) of…

M/S. Shree Ganesh Rice Mill, Khurda vs. ITO, Khurda Ward, Khurda

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes and stay petition is dismissed

ITA 383/CTK/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack14 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Chandra Mohan Garg & Laxmi Prasad Sahus.P. No.34/Ctk/2018 Assessment Year : 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Subhendu Dutta, DR
Section 250(6)

…rder of the CIT(A), we find that the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee mainly on two grounds i.e. the appeal was filed delay by 32 days and for non- prosecution following the decision of Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). 4. The ITAT, Ahmedabad in the case of Gujarat Themis Biosyn Ltd vs. JCIT (2000) 74 ITD 339 (Ahd) has held that the provisions of section 250(6) are mandatory and it is obligatory for Commissioner(Appeals) to pass a speaking order stating points raised in appeals, his decision thereon and reasons for such decisions. The provisions of sectio…

M/S Canra Credit Co-Operative Society Limited, Udupi vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Udupi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 504/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore12 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No. 504/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Canara Credit Co-Operative Society Ltd., Ground Floor, Vasuki Tower, Near Taluk Office, Udupi-576101. Pan : Aaaac 2112 L Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – I, Udupi-3. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Karuppusamy S. R, Addl. Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 12.06.2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 12.06.2019. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-10, Bangalore, For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing Today I.E., 12.06.2019. It Is Seen From The Record That 2 The Assessee Has Earlier Been Afforded Hearings On 11.04.2019, Where The Ar Sought Adjournment On Behalf Of The Assessee. In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Laid Out Above, I Am Satisfied That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Karuppusamy S. R, Addl. CIT (D.R)

…“VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 12th June, 2019. (LALIET KUMAR) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt.12.06.2019. *NS 3 Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File.…

Shri Hajiabdulgani T. Memon, Ahmedabad vs. The Inxome Tax Officer, Ward-1(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2548/AHD/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri T. C. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2547 & 2548/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15) Shri Hajiabdulgani T. Memon, Vs. ITO, Prop. Kohinoor Transport Co., Ward – 1(2)(2)/Ward-1(3)(2) 600/09, Nr. Rosy Cinema, Ahmedabad. Sarangpur, Ahmedabad. [PAN No. AFTPM 1187 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : --None-- Respondent by : Shri T. C. Meena, Sr. D.R. 15.05.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 10.06.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: Both the appeals filed by…

Shri Hajiabdulgani T. Memon, Ahmedabad vs. The Inxome Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 2547/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri T. C. Meena, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. Nos. 2547 & 2548/Ahd/2017 (Assessment Years : 2012-13 & 2014-15) Shri Hajiabdulgani T. Memon, Vs. ITO, Prop. Kohinoor Transport Co., Ward – 1(2)(2)/Ward-1(3)(2) 600/09, Nr. Rosy Cinema, Ahmedabad. Sarangpur, Ahmedabad. [PAN No. AFTPM 1187 Q] (Appellant) .. (Respondent) Appellant by : --None-- Respondent by : Shri T. C. Meena, Sr. D.R. 15.05.2019 Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement 10.06.2019 O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: Both the appeals filed by…

M/S. Bangalore Electricity Supply Company Ltd, Bengaluru vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, TDS Circle-1(1), Bengaluru

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year

ITA 645/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore10 Jun 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No. 645/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2001-02) Shri. Ishwarappa S. Devoor, (Through L/H Somshekar S. Devoor), Gurukrupa Nilaya, Bijapur Road, Beerappa Nagar, Indi – 586 209. …… Appellant. Pan : Aejpd 5683 D Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – Ii, Bijapur. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri Karuppusamy S. R, Addl. Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 10.06.2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 10.06.2019. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.19.02.2019 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Belgavi For The Assessment Year 2001-02. 2 2. None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing Today I.E., 10.06.2019. It Is Seen From The Record That The Assessee Has Earlier Been Afforded Hearings On 03.05.2019, Where None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. It Is Also Seen That The Notices Issued By Registry Fixing The Dates Of Hearing Of This Appeal For 13.05.2019 & 10.06.2019 Have Been Returned Unserved By Postal Authorities. In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Laid Out Above, I Am Satisfied That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Karuppusamy S. R, Addl. CIT (D.R)

…“VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2001-02 is dismissed. 3 Order pronounced in the open court on 10th June, 2019. (LALIET KUMAR) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt.10.06.2019. *NS Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File.…

M/S. Clutch Auto Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5727/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jun 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri N.K. Billaiya

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr.DR

…l of the assessee is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. 3. In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 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 (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but…

Shri Lalitbhai Ashumal Gangwani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 38/RJT/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e 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 ITA Nos. 36 to 38/Rjt/2017 Shri Lalitbhai Ashumal Gangwani Vs. ITO AY : 2006-07 to 2008-09 but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why…

Shri Lalitbhai Ashumal Gangwani, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Rajkot-Gujarat

In the result, all the appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 37/RJT/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia

For Appellant: Shri M J Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, Sr DR
Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 68

…e 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 ITA Nos. 36 to 38/Rjt/2017 Shri Lalitbhai Ashumal Gangwani Vs. ITO AY : 2006-07 to 2008-09 but on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue applicant, nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why…