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 367,359 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.

Sumith Ghosh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1395/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2007-08

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SH. S.L. ANURAGI, SR. DR

…dress. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his Appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR Page 1 of 3 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled f…

Smec Internatioanl Pty Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2993/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Hon’Ble G.D.Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

…erested in prosecution of the present appeal. 3. Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing. 4. In view of above, both appeal filed by assessee are dismissed as unadmitted for want o…

Smec Internatioanl Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

ITA 2992/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: HeardITAT Delhi14 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Hon’Ble G.D.Agrawal & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rinku Singh, Addl. CIT-DR

Ritesh Jewels Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2044/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2044/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 Ritesh Jewels P.Ltd. Ito, Ward-3(1)(3) 10, First Floor, Uttam Chambers Vs Ahmedabad. Bandhara No Khancho, Manek Chowk Ahmedabad 380 001. Pan : Aaecr 4854 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 10/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 10/05/2019 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-9, Ahmedabad Dated 8.6.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14 Challenging Addition Made Under Section 40(A)(Ia) Of The Income Tax Act, As Set Out In The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 40

…this, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 10th May, 2019. (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Archit Securities P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 7997/DEL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2005-06 Archit Securities P. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 26A, Sadhna Enclave, Ward-2(4), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaaca7849J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Ved Jain, Advocate & Ms Subhi Goyal, Ca Revenue By : Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 07.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 13.05.2019 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Ex Parte Order Dated 13Th April, 2016 Passed By The Cit(A)-32, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2005- 06. 2. Levy Of Penalty Of Rs.44,82,582/- U/S 271(1)(C) Of The It Act By The Assessing Officer Which Has Been Upheld By The Cit(A) Is The Only Issue Raised By The Assessee In The Grounds Of Appeal.

For Appellant: Shri Ved Jain, Advocate &For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. DR

Section 132Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…eard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the authorities below. It is an admitted fact that due to non-appearance, the ld.CIT(A), relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharya reported in 118 ITR 461 (SC) and various other decisions, dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution. However, she has not decided the appeal on merit. Considering the totality of the facts of the case and in 2 the interest of justice, I deem it proper to resto…

Bbc World Distribution Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4813/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt Beena A Pillai & Shri Prashant Maharishibbc Global News Limited, Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of (Earlier Known As Bbc World Income Tax, News Limited) Circle-1(1)(2, International Vineet Magan, C/O. Bbc Global Taxation, New Delhi News India Pvt. Ltd, Unit No. 301, Third Floor, Southern Park, Plot No. D-2, Saket District Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Bbc World Distributors Ltd, Vs. Dcit, International Taxation Vineet Magan, C/O. Bbc Global Circle-1(1)(2), New Delhi News India Pvt. Ltd, Unit No. 301, Third Floor, Southern Park, Plot No. D-2, Saket District Centre, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR

…e 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, 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 for hearing 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 revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent pow…

Bbc Global News Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT (International Taxation), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4812/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2013-14

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Raman Chopra, CIT DR

Sh. Vivek Tyagi, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 4062/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 May 2019AY 2008-09

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

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

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “G”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:-4062/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Vivek Tyagi, ITO, Ward – 2(5) R-15/8, Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad Vs. Ghaziabad. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri F.R. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 13/05/2019 Date of 13/05/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)- Ghaziabad vide order dated 30.03.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. In this case notic…

Shri Hasmukh Prabhulal Mehta, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1010/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: FixedITAT Ahmedabad08 May 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Ms. Madhumita Royshri Hasmukh Prabhulal Mehta, Vs. Ito, 1, Kalgi Apartment, Tamboili’S Ward-1(2)(2), No Khancho, Doshiwada Pole, Ahmedabad. Kalupur, Ahmedabad – 380 001. [Pan No. Abdpm 3403 D] (Appellant) .. (Respondent)

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Ms. Nilam Das Gupta, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…e, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in pursuing with its appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, following order of the ITAT, Delhi Shri Hasmukh Prabhulal Mehta vs ITO Asst.Year –2012-13 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…

Shri Rohitbhai Chandulal Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2545/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Rohitbhai Chandulal Shah Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 5/2, Vitrag Coop. Hsg. Society Vs Ahmedabad. Prabhudas Thakker College Road Nr.Shantivan, Paldi Ahmedabad 380 007. Pan : Aqeps 7758 R अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2019 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Ahmedabad Dated 1.9.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2010-11 Challenging Penalty Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Notice Of Hearing Was Issued To The Assessee By Regd. Ad Post On 27.3.2019 For Hearing Of The Appeal On 7.5.2019. Ad Slip Was Returned Post Authority After Duly Serving The Notice On The Assessee & Placed On Record. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Assessee Has Not Filed Any Adjournment Application Nor Intimated About Reasons For Its Non-Appearance In The Matter. In View Of This, It Is Presumed That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Therefore, Appeal Of The Assessee Stand Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution Following Decision Of The Itat, Delhi Bench In Cit Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Delhi).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(b)

…this, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2019. (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Smt.Naynaben Rohitbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2544/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad07 May 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2544/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2010-11 Smt.Naynaben Rohitbhai Shah Ito, Ward-5(3)(2) 5/2, Vitrag Coop. Hsg. Society Vs Ahmedabad. Prabhudas Thakker College Road Nr.Shantivan, Paldi Ahmedabad 380 007. Pan : Amups 5608 N अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 07/05/2019 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Ahmedabad Dated 1.9.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2010-11 Challenging Penalty Under Section 271(1)(B) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Notice Of Hearing Was Issued To The Assessee By Regd. Ad Post On 27.3.2019 For Hearing Of The Appeal On 7.5.2019. Ad Slip Was Returned Post Authority After Duly Serving The Notice On The Assessee & Placed On Record. However, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Assessee Has Not Filed Any Adjournment Application Nor Intimated About Reasons For Its Non-Appearance In The Matter. In View Of This, It Is Presumed That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Therefore, Appeal Of The Assessee Stand Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution Following Decision Of The Itat, Delhi Bench In Cit Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Delhi).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 271(1)(b)

…this, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2019. (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

M/S. M.V. Food Industries Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 4(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 2642/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am M/S M.V. Food Industries Ltd. Vs. Dcit, Circle-4(2), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM M/s M.V. Food Industries Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Circle-4(2), Kolkata 1st Floor, 3A, Garstin Place, Kolkata- 700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AACCM 3003 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 07/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 07/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2014-15, is directed agai…

M/S. Saktidham Enclave Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2513/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-, Kz] I.T.A. No. 2513/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S. Saktidham Enclave Pvt. Ltd..............................…………………………………………Appellant 7, Mango Lane, 3Rd Floor, R. No. 311, Kolkata – 700 001. [Pan: Aajcs 9384 B] Ito, Ward 5(2), Kolkata...................……………………………………………………………..Respondent P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Sanjit Kumar Das, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 07, 2019 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 2, Kolkata Dated 03.10.2018. 2. In This Case, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Fixed For Hearing On 01.04.2019. None, However, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Said Date & Hearing, Therefore, Was Adjourned To 07.05.2019 With The Direction To The Registry To Send The Notice Of The Said Hearing To The Assessee At The Address Given In The Appeal Memo By Rpad. On 07.05.2019 I.E. Today, None However Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Seeking Adjournment Has Been Filed In Spite Of The Fact That Notice Of The Said Hearing Send To The Assessee By Rpad Was Duly Served, The Proof Of Which Is Available On Record. Keeping In View This Non-Compliant Attitude Of The Assessee, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Seriously Interested In Prosecuting This Appeal Filed Before The Tribunal.

…This principle is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th May, 2019. (P.M. Jagtap)…

Aditya Logistics (I) P. Ltd, Navi Mumbai vs. DCIT (OSD) -10(3), Mumbai

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

ITA 125/MUM/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai07 May 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Sri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Sri Nk Pradhan, Am Aayakr Apila Sam./ Ita No. 125/Mum/2018 (Inaqa-Arna Baya- / Assessment Year 2011-12) Aditya Logistics India Private The Dy. Commissioner Of Limited Income Tax (Osd)- Office No. 12, Vasundhara Circle 10(3), Mumbai-20 Vs. Heights, Sector 11, Sanpada Near Jui Nagar Railway Station, Navi Mumbai-400 020 .. (P`%Yaqaai- / Respondent) (Apilaaqai- / Appellant) स्थायी लेखा िं./Pan No. Aadcm6294N अपीलाथी की ओर े / Appellant By : Shri M Subramanian, Ar प्रत्यथी की ओर े / Respondent By : Shri Satischandra Rajore, Dr ुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing: 07-05-2019 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07-05-2019

For Appellant: Shri M Subramanian, ARFor Respondent: Shri Satischandra Rajore, DR

Section 143(3)

…unsel for the assessee Mr. M. Subramanian took us through the order of CIT(A) and stated that the CIT(A) has passed ex-parte order dismissing the appeal of assessee by applying the decision of Delhi ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). The learned Counsel for the assessee took us through the grounds of appeal and the same read as under: - “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the appeal. 2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law the learned C.I.T. (A) erred in dismissing the a…

Smt. Paramjeet Kumari Luthara, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 5336/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 May 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Rinko Singh, Addl.CIT

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:-5336/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Smt. Paramjeet Kumari Luthara JCIT, Prop. M/s. International Surgico Range-30, Vs. Industries, New Delhi. 3071/8, Partap Street, Daryaganj New Delhi - 110 002. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Smt. Rinko Singh, Addl.CIT Date of Hearing 07/05/2019 Date of 07/05/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER L.P. SAHU, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-16, New Delhi v…

Sen Project Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Additional CIT, Range - 7, Kolkata

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

ITA 987/KOL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 May 2019AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Sen Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Acit, Range-7, Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 271D

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Sen Project Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ACIT, Range-7, Kolkata 197, Rabindra Sarani, Dum Dum, Kolkata, West Bengal "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAKCS 4043 A .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 06/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 06/05/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2007-08, is directed against th…

Rajnesh Kumar Agarwal, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT X, New Delhi

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

ITA 279/DEL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2013-14 Rajnesh Kumar Agarwal, Vs. Pr. Cit-X, 116, Devika Tower, New Delhi. 6, Nehru Place, New Delhi. Pan: Afqpa1657C (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.S. Rana, Cit, Dr Date Of Hearing : 06.05.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 06.05.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 21St December, 2015 Passed U/S 263 Of The It Act By The Pcit, Delhi -10, Relating To Assessment Year 2013-14. This Appeal Was Fixed For A Number Of Times & Was Fixed Last On 5Th March, 2. 2019. However, 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. This Type Of Conduct On The Part Of The Assessee Shows That He Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Field By Him. 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 S.S. Rana, CIT, DR

Section 263

…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 at the time of hearing itself i.e.,…

Dutchply Industries Ltd., Chandigarh vs. ACIT, C-4(1), Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1578/CHANDI/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh03 May 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: The Bench On 13/02/2019. At The Time Of Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Even No Application Seeking Adjournment Was Filed. It Can Be Safely Presumed That The Assessee

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

…assessee. Even no application seeking adjournment was filed. It can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc. 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality 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…

Bharat Sanchar Nigam Limited, Bhavnagar vs. DCIT, TDS Circle, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2595/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad01 May 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2595/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. Dcit, Tds Circle C/O. U.C. Maheshwari & Co. Vs Ahmedabad. Doshi Chamber Mehta Market Surendranagar 363 001 Tan : Ahmbo 3197 F अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01/05/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 01/05/2019 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-8, Ahmedabad Dated 11.9.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2009-10 Challenging Order Passed Under Section 201(1)/201(1A) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Appeal Was Presented On 24.11.2017. Appeal Was Listed For Hearing On Two Occasions. However, None Remained Present On Behalf Of The Assessee. Assessee Has Not Filed Any Adjournment Application Nor Intimated About Reasons For His Non-Appearance In The Matter. In View Of This, It Is Presumed That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting The Appeal Before The Tribunal, Therefore, Appeal Of The Assessee Stand Dismissed For Want Of Prosecution Following Decision Of The Itat, Delhi Bench In Cit Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 Itd 320 (Delhi).

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.K. Dev, Sr.DR

Section 201(1)

…this, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced in the Open Court on 1st May, 2019. (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Ajaynath & Sons, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(1), Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5386/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R

…al 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…