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 367,368 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.

Bhoomica Agro Industries Ltd., Shahibabad vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 1272/DEL/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 May 2019AY 2007-08

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…

M/S. Jai International, Udaipur vs. DCIT, Circle-1, Udaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 138/JODH/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K.Saini & Shri N.K. Choudhrym/S Jai International, Vs The Dcit, Circle-1, G-1/202, Udyog Vihar, Udaipur Sukher, Udaipur

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), we treat this appeal as unadmitted. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparatio…

Adimulam Harivardhan, Rajahmundry vs. The CIT(A)-12, Hyderabad

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

ITA 529/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bleadimulam Harivardhan, Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2), S/O Late A. Narayana Rao, Rajahmundry. Prop. M/S. Murali Krishna Enterprises, D.No. 29-33-6, Devi Chowk, Rajahmundry. Pan No. Atjpa 8637 M (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 16/04/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 30/04/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Raothis Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Hyderabad, Dated 18/07/2018 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. There Is A Delay Of One Day In Filing This Appeal. The Assessee Has Filed An Affidavit. We Have Gone Through The Affidavit & Find That There Is A Sufficient Cause To Condone The Delay. Accordingly, Delay Is Condoned. 3. Facts Of The Case, In Brief, Are That The Assessee Is The Proprietor Of M/S. Sree Murali Krishna Enterprises, Engaged In (Adimulam Harivardhan)

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR

Section 133ASection 143(3)Section 148

…carried the matter in appeal before the ld.CIT(A). Before the ld. CIT(A), the assessee has not appeared. Ld. CIT(A) after giving as many as 08 opportunities, passed an exparte order by following the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Del.)] 5. On appeal before us, ld. counsel for the assessee has submitted that due to unavoidable circumstances, assessee could not appear before the ld. CIT(A) and submitted that one more opportunity should be given to the assessee as he is ready to appear before the ld. CIT(A) without fail. He further submitted that the ld. CIT(A) without adjud…

Atman Dipakkumar Thakkar, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(3)(1), Surat

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

ITA 458/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O. P. Meena

Section 10(38)Section 69

…ntire issue is set-aside to CIT (A). We have heard the rival contentions of both the parties. We find that the ld. CIT(A) 5. has simply dismissed the appeal for non-appearance by the assessee on various dates by applying case law of Multiplan India Limited, 38 ITD 320 (Del). We find that the ld. CIT (A) has not allowed proper opportunity of being heard. The principle of audi alteram partem is the basic concept of natural justice. The expression “audi alteram partem” implies that a person must be given an opportunity to defend himself. This principle is sine qua non of every civilized society. The right to notic…

Mahendra Budharam Narwaria, Ahmedabad vs. DCIT Circle 4(2), Ahmedabd

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

ITA 1626/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

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

…sessee though the notice fixing the date of hearing was served on Assessee, which indicates that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, following the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. The assessee shall however be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. 3. In the result, the appeals filed by the Assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 30 - 04- 2019 (AMAR…

Sunlight Extrusion Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-2(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2059/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2059/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13)

For Appellant: Shri Vinod Tanwani, Sr.DRFor Respondent: 26/04/2019

…at 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 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, to seek for a recall of this order. 4. In the result, appea…

Rudrapriya Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 887/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs Rudrapriya Barter Pvt.Ltd., Ito, 85, Metcalf Street, Ward-13(3), Kolkata-700013. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aafcr7608R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. A.K.Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2019

…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, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution. Order pronounced in the open court on 30.04.2…

Waterlink Shoppers Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 15(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 884/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs Waterlink Shoppers Pvt.Ltd., Ito, 66, Bandhaghat, Salkia, Ward-15(4), Howrah-711106. Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aabcw2117Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. A.K.Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2019

Topflow Infotech Pvt Ltd, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward 15(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 528/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata30 Apr 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. J.Sudhakar Reddy & Sh.S.S.Viswanethra Ravivs Topflow Infotech Pvt.Ltd., Ito, 104/1, Foreshore Road, Ward-15(4), Ground Floor, Howrah-711102 Kolkata-700107. Pan-Aaect4307J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. A.K.Nayak, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing 07.02.2019 Date Of Pronouncement 30.04.2019

Jawahar Lal Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6800/DEL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Apr 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Shri Jawahar Lal Jain, Vs. Income Tax Officer, K-107, Hauz Khas Enclave, Ward-32(5), New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aafpj4569E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Gautam Jain, Advocate & Shri Lalit Mohan, Ca Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr. Dr

Section 147Section 148Section 234BSection 234CSection 68

…which the Hon’ble Apex Court while dealing with, the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that- “Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it” The Delhi Tribunal in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as: reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non- prosecution of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. 4.2 In view of these facts. I am of the opinion that no interference is called for in the AO’s order and therefore, the grounds of appeal are dismissed and the addition made by the AO is confirmed.” 2.2 On merits, the Ld. CIT(A) simply uphel…

Shri Radhey Shyam Jaiswal, Sitapur vs. Income Tax Officer, Sitapur

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

ITA 4/LKW/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow29 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2014-15

…pears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further. As such, we hold that the appeal is 2 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), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, ge…

Smt. Atro W/O Lekhraj, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2458/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 Atro W/O Lekhraj, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 4081 Aali Village, Sarita Vihar, Ward-28(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aqfpa5527R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

…at the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 4. The Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) has held as under: 2 "if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails 'to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the…

M/S Shamli Paper Mills Ltd., Shamli vs. Dy.CIT, Muzaffarnagar

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 5733/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Apr 2019AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “F”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:- 5733/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shamli Paper Mills Ltd., DCIT, Subhash Chowk, Circle-1, Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Shamli (U.P) Meerut Road, PAN AAECS3641L Muzaffarnagar. (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 29/04/2019 Date of 29/04/2019 pronouncement O R D E R PER AMIT SHUKLA, J.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals) Muzaffarnagar vide order dated 29.07.2015…

Shri Rajesh Pravinchandra Shah, HUF, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2)(4), Ahmedabad

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs

ITA 1952/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadavआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.1952/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2009-2010 Rajesh Pravinchandra Shah (Huf) Vs. Ito, Ward-2(2)(4) Ahmedabad. 32, Ellora Park Society Narangpura Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "त् यथ"/ (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.DR

…his, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Order pronounced in the Court on 26th April, 2019. (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/04/2019…

Concept Lifeline Insurance Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Kheda vs. The Dy. CIT, Kheda Circle, Nadiad

Appeals of the assessee stand dismissed for want of prosecution following decision of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in CIT Vs

ITA 1569/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad26 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Rajesh Meena, Sr.DR

…is, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeals before the Tribunal, therefore, appeals 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). Order pronounced in the Court on 26th April, 2019. (RAJPAL YADAV) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 26/04/2019…

Basavaraj G Kallimath, Dharwad vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-1(4), Hubli

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-15

ITA 3277/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No. 3277/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) Mr. Basavaraj G. Kallimath, Prop: New Karnataka Roadlines, H. No. 88, Mangilal Building, Ghantikeri Oni, Hubballi, Dist. Dharwad. …… Appellant. Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward – 1(4), Hubli. .….. Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 25.04.2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 26.04.2019. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt.09.03.2018 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Hubli, 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., On 25.04.2019. It Is Seen From The Record That Even On Earlier Occasions, The Learned Ar For The Assessee Sought Adjournments Of Hearings On Behalf Of The Assessee & Has Till Date Not Put Forward Any Submissions Whatsoever In Support Of The Grounds Raised By The Assessee In This Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Sumer Singh Meena, Addl. CIT

…“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. 3 Order pronounced in the open court on 26th April, 2019. (N. V. VASUDEVAN) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt. 26.04.2019. *NS Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard…

Competent Software Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 340/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Apr 2019AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Shalini Verma, Sr. 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, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for want of pros…

Smt Usha Arora, Chandrapur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Chandrapur

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

ITA 68/NAG/2019[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Nagpur24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am & Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.68/Nag/2019 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014–15 Smt. Usha Arora, Ganj Ward, Arora Prasuti Gruha, Chandrapur-442402. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abfpa1032N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Chandrapur Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Chandrapur. S.A. No.01/Nag/2019 (Arising Out Of Ita No.68/Nag/2019) िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014–15 Smt. Usha Arora, Ganj Ward, Arora Prasuti Gruha, Chandrapur-442402. .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant Pan : Abfpa1032N बनाम / V/S. Acit, Chandrapur Circle, ……""यथ" / Respondent Chandrapur. Assessee By : Shri Abhay Agarwal, Adv. Revenue By : Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. Cit

For Appellant: Shri Abhay Agarwal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri U. U. Kasar, Jt. CIT

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)

…term capital gain of Rs.22,35,195/- and added the same to the total income of the assessee and assessed the total income of the assessee at 3 S.A. No.01/NAG/2019 Rs.39,99,500/-. The CIT(A), relying on the decision in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320, passed an ex-parte order and dismissed the appeal of the assessee due to non-appearance of the assessee before the CIT(A). Thus, in the process, huge demand is created. 4. Aggrieved with the same, assessee not only filed the appeal against the additions but also filed Stay Application for stay of recovery of demand. 5. Before us, ld. Counsel for…

Republic Stores (Trade), Kolkata vs. JCIT, R-56, Kolkata

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

ITA 716/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata24 Apr 2019AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Republic Stores (Trade) Vs. Jcit, Range-56, Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Republic Stores (Trade) Vs. JCIT, Range-56, Kolkata 13B, Chittaranjan Avenue, Central Kolkata-72. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AADFR 7428 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 08.04.2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 24/04/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2011-12, is directed against the o…

M/S Maitri Realtor and Construction Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-4(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014-

ITA 562/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Apr 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Laliet Kumari.T. A. No. 562/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2014-15) M/S. Maitri Realtor & Construction Pvt. Ltd., No.65/1, 2Nd Floor, Chennamma Memorial, School Compound, Mission Road, Bangalore -560 027. …… Appellant. Vs. Deputy Commissioner Of Income Tax, Circle – 4(1)(2), 2Nd Floor, Bmtc Building, 80 Feet Road, Koramangala, Bangalore – 560 095. ….. Respondent. Appellant By : None. Respondent By : Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, Cit (D.R) Date Of Hearing : 04.04.2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 24.04.2019. O R D E R Per Shri Jason P Boaz, A.M. : This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dt. 30.11.2017 Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-4, Bangalore For The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2 2. None Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee When This Appeal Was Called For Hearing On 04.04.2019. It Is Seen From The Record That The Assessee Has Earlier Been Afforded Hearings On 12.06.2018 & 04.09.2018, Where The Learned Ar For The Assessee Sought Adjournments Of Hearings On Behalf Of The Assessee. In The Hearing Fixed On 27.11.2018, The Learned Ar Filed Letter Of Even Date Informing The Bench That It Was Withdrawing The Power Of Attorney To Represent The Case As They Were Unable To Contact The Assessee. We Find That The Notice Issued By Registry Fixing The Date Of Hearing Of This Appeal For 04.04.2019 Was Returned Unserved By Postal Authorities. In View Of The Facts & Circumstances Of The Case As Laid Out Above, We Are Satisfied That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing The Present Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri C. H. Sundar Rao, 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. 3 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2014- 15 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 24th April, 2019. (LALIET KUMAR) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt. 24.04.2019. *NS Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard F…