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 367,336 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.

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 36/RJT/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot30 May 2019AY 2006-07

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…

Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 3536/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma

…s of the assessee are 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…

Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 3535/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma

…s of the assessee are 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…

Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 3534/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma

…s of the assessee are 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…

Shiv Vani Oil & Gas Exploration Services Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 3533/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma

…s of the assessee are 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…

Ramamohana Rao Yalamanchilli, Kodada vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Suryapet

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

ITA 282/HYD/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Sri Mohd. AfzalFor Respondent: Sri Dinesh Paruchuri, DR

…as the health condition of the assessee, the assessee should be given one more opportunity to substantiate his case before the CIT(A). That apart, Ld. CIT(A) passed exparte order by applying the ratio in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del.) without considering the merits of the case. CIT(A) ought to have passed the order on merits though the assessee has not appeared. CIT(A) has no power to apply the ratio laid down in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd (supra) to dismiss the appeal of the assessee. Under these facts and circumstances of the case, I set-aside the order passe…

Siri Jewels Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1/HYD/2019[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Sri A.V. RaghuramFor Respondent: Sri Dinesh Paruchuri, DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL HYDERABAD BENCHES “SMC” BENCH: HYDERABAD BEFORE SHRI V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA. No.01/Hyd/2019 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Siri Jewels Private Limited, vs. ITO, Hyderabad. Ward-3(2), PAN: AAMCS 1013 Q Hyderabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee: Sri A.V. Raghuram For Revenue : Sri Dinesh Paruchuri, DR Date of Hearing : 13/05/2019 Date of Pronouncement : 24/05/2019 ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JM. This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the CIT(A)- 3, Hyderabad dated 09/07/2018 for the assessment year 2012-13. In this appeal, assessee raised 5 grounds of…

Vangaurd Automotive Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 763/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2011-12 Vanguard Automotive Ltd., Vs. Acit, 303, Ashirwad Commercial Complex, Circle-26(1), D-1, Green Park Main, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aadcr1402P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sushil Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 27.11.2015 Passed By The Cit(A)-9, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. This Appeal Was First Fixed For Hearing On 05.03.2019 & Since None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On That Date, Again Notice Was Sent Through Rpad Fixing The Appeal For Hearing On 6Th May, 2019. However, When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. No Application Seeking Adjournment Was Also Filed. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That It Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By It. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned Below, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution:- 1. Cit Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 Itr 461. 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 Itd 320 (Del.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sushil Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

…ioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application can explain the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2019. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) A…

Smt. Suman Lakhani, Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution

ITA 6954/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Suman Lakhani, Vs. Acit, Plot No.265, Sector-24, Circle-Ii, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan: Aagpl7939R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.05.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.11.2014 Of The Cit(A)-2, Faridabad, Relating To Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For A Number Of Times & It Was Last Fixed For Hearing On 13Th March, 2019. Since None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Therefore, Notice Through Rpad Was Issued Fixing The Hearing Of Appeal For 07.05.2019. However, When The Name Of The Assessee Was Called, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Petition Seeking Adjournment Of The Case Was Filed. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That She Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Her. Therefore, Following The Decisions Mentioned Below, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution:- 1. Cit Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 Itr 461. 2. Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt, 223 Itr 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner Of Income-Tax Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 Itd 320 (Del.).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sunil Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

…ioned below, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution:- 1. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr., 118 ITR 461. 2. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.). 3. However, if the assessee, through proper application, explains the reasons for such non-appearance, the Tribunal may, at its discretion, recall this order. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine for want of prosecution. The decision was pronounced in the open court on 22.05.2019. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACC…

Smt. Pappi Yadav, Lucknow vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Range- 6, Lucknow

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 169/LKW/2019[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow21 May 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri. A. D. Jainassessment Year: 2006-07 Smt. Pappi Yadav V. Dcit 417/355, Niwajganj Range 6 Lucknow Lucknow Tan/Pan:Aaspy9196M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Smt. Alka Singh, D.R. Date Of Hearing: 21 05 2019 Date Of Pronouncement: 21 05 2019 O R D E R This Is Assessee’S Appeal Against The Order Of The Ld. Cit(A)-2, Lucknow Dated 17/10/2018 For Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. This Appeal Was Taken Up For Hearing On 21/5/2019, But None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. This Appeal Was Earlier Fixed For Hearing On 26/4/2019, On Which Date The Ld. A.R. Of The Assessee Had Moved An Application For Adjournment On The Pretext That The Paper Book Is Required To Be Filed In This Case. Conceding The Request Of The Ld. A.R. Of The Assessee, The Hearing Was Adjourned To 21/5/2019 & The Date Of Hearing Was Duly Noted By The Ld. A.R. Of The Assessee. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Having Knowledge Of The Date Of Hearing. 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, I Hold That The Appeal Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Ita No.169/Lkw/2019 Page 2 Of 3

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

…ssee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such, I hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for ITA No.169/LKW/2019 Page 2 of 3 non prosecution. In this regard, I 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), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, g…

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahbubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 1809/HYD/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal – AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nilanjan Dey – DR

…fore the ld.CIT(A) though as many as opportunities were given. However, the ld.CIT(A) instead of adjudicating the appeals on merits, passed exparte orders. I find that the ld.CIT(A) has no power to pass exparte order by applying Multiplan (India) Ltd.’s case (38 ITD 320) and ought to have been passed the orders on merits of the cases. So far as another argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is concerned, the assessee is being an educational institution, when the Assessing Officer adopting maximum marginal rate, he ought to have been specified in the assessment order why he adopted maximum marginal rate. The…

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahbubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 1808/HYD/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal – AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nilanjan Dey – DR

…fore the ld.CIT(A) though as many as opportunities were given. However, the ld.CIT(A) instead of adjudicating the appeals on merits, passed exparte orders. I find that the ld.CIT(A) has no power to pass exparte order by applying Multiplan (India) Ltd.’s case (38 ITD 320) and ought to have been passed the orders on merits of the cases. So far as another argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is concerned, the assessee is being an educational institution, when the Assessing Officer adopting maximum marginal rate, he ought to have been specified in the assessment order why he adopted maximum marginal rate. The…

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mahbubnagar vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 1807/HYD/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal – AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nilanjan Dey – DR

…fore the ld.CIT(A) though as many as opportunities were given. However, the ld.CIT(A) instead of adjudicating the appeals on merits, passed exparte orders. I find that the ld.CIT(A) has no power to pass exparte order by applying Multiplan (India) Ltd.’s case (38 ITD 320) and ought to have been passed the orders on merits of the cases. So far as another argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is concerned, the assessee is being an educational institution, when the Assessing Officer adopting maximum marginal rate, he ought to have been specified in the assessment order why he adopted maximum marginal rate. The…

Sri Sai Educational Society, Mah vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Mahbubnagar

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

ITA 1806/HYD/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Mohd. Afzal – AdvFor Respondent: Mr. Nilanjan Dey – DR

…fore the ld.CIT(A) though as many as opportunities were given. However, the ld.CIT(A) instead of adjudicating the appeals on merits, passed exparte orders. I find that the ld.CIT(A) has no power to pass exparte order by applying Multiplan (India) Ltd.’s case (38 ITD 320) and ought to have been passed the orders on merits of the cases. So far as another argument of the ld. counsel for the assessee is concerned, the assessee is being an educational institution, when the Assessing Officer adopting maximum marginal rate, he ought to have been specified in the assessment order why he adopted maximum marginal rate. The…

M/S. Shri Valsad Sahakari Khand Udyog Mandli Ltd., Valsad vs. The ACIT, Valsad Circle, Valsad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2415/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.2415/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Valsad Sahakar Khand Udyog M. Vs The Assistant Ltd., . Commissioner Of Income N.H.No.8, Parnera Pardi, Valsad. Tax, Valsad. [Pan: Aaaav 0543 Q] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: None. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.DR

…al. Therefore, appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed unadmitted. We relied upon the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case Page 2 of 2 Shri Valsad Sahakari khand Udyog M. Ltd., Vs. ACIT, Valsad/ITA No.2415/Ahd/2015 of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we accordingly, dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 3. The order pronounced in the open court 16-05-2019. 4. (O.P.MEENA) (BHAVNESH SAINI) (लेखासद"यकेसम" /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) ("याियकसद"यतथा/JUDICIAL MEMBER) सुरत/ Surat, "दनांक Dated: 16th May , 2019/S.Gangadhara Ra…

Shri Patel Yunus Ibrahim, Bharuch vs. The Dy.CIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non-

ITA 1475/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Surat16 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A.No.1475/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2005-06 Shri Patel Yunus Ibrahim, Vs The Deputy Commissioner Mona Palace, A-4, Regent Park, . Of Income Tax, Bharuch Jambusar Road, Bharuch – 392 001. Circle, Bharuch. [Pan: Aaipp 9507 H] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By: None. राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By: Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra – Sr.DR

…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.” Further, in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), there was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date, hence, on the basis of inherent powers, the Shri Patel Yunus Ibrahim Vs. DCIT, Bharuch Circle, Bharuch /ITA No.1475/Ahd/2014 Page 3 of 3 Tribunal treated the appeal; filed by the revenue; as unadmitted in view of the provisions of Rule 19 of the…

Shri.C.A.Kumar, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-5(2)(5), Bangalore

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

ITA 94/BANG/2019[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore16 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year :2009-10 Shri C.A. Kumar, No. 366, 12Th Main, The Income Tax Officer, Hanumantha Nagar, Vs. Ward – 5 (2) (5), Bangalore – 560 050. Bangalore. Pan: Agupk2061K Appellant Respondent Appellant By : None : Shri Tshering Ongda, Jcit (Dr) & Respondent By Shri Dilip, Junior Standing Counsel Date Of Hearing : 14.05.2019 Date Of : 16.05.2019 Pronouncement

For Appellant: None

…eel it proper to decide this appeal ex parte qua the assessee. I feel that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal and therefore, by respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), I dismiss the appeal of the assessee as unadmitted. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (ARUN KUMAR GARODIA) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, the 16th May, 2019. /MS/ Page 5 of 5 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Respondent 5. DR…

M/S. Arc Marine Pvt. Ltd., Navi Mumbai vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1)(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 235/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 May 2019AY 2012-13

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/Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, 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…

Syndicate Bank, Noida vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 5319/DEL/2016[2015-16 (F.Y. 2014-15)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 May 2019

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Sr.D.R

…assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, 2 I.T.A. No.5319/DEL/2016 therefore, hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon 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). 4. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited above, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal o…

D.J. Patel & Co., Vadodara vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3)., Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1479/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royd. J. Patel & Co. Vs. Ito, Near St Depot, Ward – 1(2)(3), Station Road, Baroda. Baroda.

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…e. D. J. Patel & Co. vs.ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 Therefore, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in pursuing with its appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, following order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. However the assessee is at liberty to file the application for recalling the order in future after explaining the reasons for the non appearance on the date of hearing if he is serious in pursuing the appeal. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. T…