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 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. Jay Polychem India Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 1338/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Apr 2019AY 2009-10

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

…6 2 view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeals. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as un-admitted and dismiss the same. We 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 for the pur…

M/S. Krishna Sales Corporation (Prop. Mr. Mahesh Ramavtar Mittal), Ahmedabad vs. The ITO, Ward-1(2)(3)., Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1469/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2013-14
Section 143(3)

…f Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR Assessment Year: 2013-14 Page 2 of 2 480(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, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Pronounced in the open court today on 29th day of March 2019. Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member) (Vice President) Ahmed…

Gujarat Health Care Limited (in Liqn.), Ahmedabad vs. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1220/AHD/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Pradip Kumar Kedia & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Apoorva Bhardwaj, 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 appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 29 - 03- 2019 (PRADIP…

Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1390/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice- & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1390/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd……..............………………………………………………….…….…..............…...Appellant C/O P.K. Himmatsinghka & Co. 41,B.B. Ganguly Street 2Nd Floor Central Plaza Kolkata – 700 012 [Pan : Aabcm 8954 B] Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata….............………………………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Jcit, Sr. Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 2Nd, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 29Th , 2019 O R D E R Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm :-

Section 250Section 271(1)(b)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘D’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-President & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Judicial Member] I.T.A. No. 1390/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Max Cot Merchants Pvt. Ltd……..............………………………………………………….…….…..............…...Appellant C/o P.K. Himmatsinghka & Co. 41,B.B. Ganguly Street 2nd Floor Central Plaza Kolkata – 700 012 [PAN : AABCM 8954 B] Income Tax Officer, Wd-1(4), Kolkata….............………………………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, JCIT, Sr. DR appearing on behalf of the…

Maruti Nutritious Food Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward 2(1)(4), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2626/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad28 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Waseem Ahmedआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.2626/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Maruti Nutritious Food Ltd., Ito, 3Rd Floor, Maruti House, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Opp. Sales India, Ahmedabad. Opp. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Pan: Aaccm7574N

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, अहमदाबाद "यायपीठ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, ‘’SMC’’BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER And WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.2626/AHD/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2013-2014 Maruti Nutritious Food Ltd., ITO, 3rd Floor, Maruti House, Ward-2(1)(4), Vs. Opp. Sales India, Ahmedabad. Opp. Ashram Road, Ahmedabad PAN: AACCM7574N (Applicant) (Respondent) : Assessee by None : Revenue by Shri T.C. Meena, Sr.DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 27/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date of Pronouncement: 28/03/2019 आदेश/O R D E R PER WASEEM AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEM…

Neelam Sikka, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-67(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 5757/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Neelam Sikka, Vs. Ito, F-167/8, Sbi Officers Flats, Ward-67(3), Rajouri Garden, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Alxps7375L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms Rakhi Vimal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 14.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 27.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Rakhi Vimal, 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, satisfies the Bench 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. Pronounced in the open court on 27.03.2019. (R.K. PANDA) ACCOUNTANT MEMFBER Dated:…

Sanjay Sinha, Chandigarh vs. ITO, Ward- 32(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 6155/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

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…

Meena Gupta, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 36(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 5939/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2014-15

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 her 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…

Dinesh Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. Pr. CIT, Karnal

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 3762/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:- 3762/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Dinesh Kumar Prop. Pr. CIT M/s. Ganesh Dass Dines Aayakar Bhawan, Vs. Kumar & Co. Sector-12 Shop No. 61, New Grain Karnal Market, Taraori Karnal PAN AATPK3684R (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 26/03/2019 Date of 26/03/2019 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)-IV, Kanpur…

Mr. Neeraj Jain, Ghaziabad vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 3678/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:- 3678/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 Neeraj Jain, DCIT 12/40, Raj Nagar, Cent. Circle Vs. Ghaziabad Ghaziabad PAN AAIPJ3549D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, DR Date of Hearing 26/03/2019 Date of 26/03/2019 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)-IV, Kanpur vide order dated 31.03.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2. H…

Hdfc Bank Ltd., New Delhi vs. Addl. CIT (TDS), Ghaziabad

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 3659/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Mar 2019AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI AMIT SHUKLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI L.P. SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.:- 3659/Del/2016 Assessment Year: 2008-09 HDFC Bank Ltd. Addl. CIT (TDS) A-4, Panchwati, Ghaziabad Vs. Adarsh Nagar New Delhi PAN AAACH2702H (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 26/03/2019 Date of 26/03/2019 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) Ghaziabad vide order dated 01.03.2016 pertaining to assessment year 2008-09. 2…

Shri Mahila Sewa Sahakari Bank Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Centralized Processing Cell-TDS, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2566/AHD/2017[2013-14 ]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Mar 2019

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 James Kurian, Sr. D.R
Section 200A(1)

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

DE vs. Aria Co-Operative Non Agricultural Thrift and Credit Society Ltd., Gurgaon

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

ITA 6201/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…In 2 view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as un-admitted 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 for the purpo…

Ortel Communication Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 3645/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11

…y inferred that the assessee is not serious in pursuing its appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of 2 Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP). 3. Before parting, we think it appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, then it may, if so advised, pray for recall of this order and decision on merits. 4. In the result,…

M/S.Prabha Projects Private Limited, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 15(2)(4), Mumbai

The appeal stands partly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 7449/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Mahavir Singh, Jm & Hon’Ble Shri Manoj Kumar Aggarwal, Am आयकरअपील सं./ I.T.A. No.7449/Mum/2017 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year:2012-13) M/S. Prabha Projects Pvt.Ltd. Income Tax Officer-15(2)(4) बनाम/ Rajkumar Jaju Aaykar Bhavan, M.K. Road E-302, Ashok Nagar,Old Vazir Naka, Mumbai-400 020. Vs. Borivali (W), Mumbai-400 091. "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No. Aafcp-1190-G (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" / Respondent) : Appellant By : Adjournment Application Rejected Respondent By : Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख/ : 18/03/2019 Date Of Hearing घोषणा की तारीख / : 22/03/2019 Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R

For Appellant: Adjournment Application rejectedFor Respondent: Abhi Rama Kartikeyan - Ld.DR
Section 144

…ee has been assessed on best judgment basis u/s 144 on 23/03/2015 at Rs.151.54 Lacs since the assessee failed to make any submissions. Similar was the situation before first appellate authority wherein Ld. CIT(A), by applying the ratio of Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 dismissed the appeal. 4. Upon careful consideration, the undisputed position that emerges is that the assessee has remained negligent in attending the proceedings before all the authorities. However, we find that first appellate authority has not disposed-off the appeal by passing a speaking order. Therefore, in the interest of justice, we remit t…

A.Srinivasarao, Rajahmundry vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(1), Rajahmundry

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

ITA 117/VIZ/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam20 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri V. Durga Rao, Hon’Ble & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh, Hon’Bledr. A. Srinivasa Rao, Vs. Acit, Circle-1(1), D.No. 46-17-17, Danavaipeta, Rajahmundry. Rajahmundry. Pan No. Abdpa 9299 D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri G.V.N. Hari – Advocate. Department By : Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22/01/2019. Date Of Pronouncement : 20/03/2019. O R D E R Per V. Durga Rao

For Appellant: Shri G.V.N. Hari – AdvocateFor Respondent: Smt. Suman Malik – Sr.DR
Section 133ASection 143(2)

…he addition as unexplained investment of Rs.10.00 lakhs. 11. On appeal, ld. CIT(A) has not adjudicated this ground. Apart from above, we find that ld.CIT(A) by relying on the decision of ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. [(38 ITD 320) (Del.)] dismissed the appeal of the assessee. The ld. CIT(A) ought not to have dismissed the appeal by applying Multiplan’s case (supra). The ld. CIT(A) has to dispose of the (Dr. A. Srinivasa Rao) appeal by considering the merits of the case on this ground also. Therefore, we direct the ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the ground relates to unexplained…

Sh. Mahima Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6306/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Mahima Hospitality Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, N-18, N Block Market, Greater Circle-16(1), New Delhi Kailash Part-I, New Delhi Pan :Aaecm0063C (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rinku Singh, Sr.Dr

…n that assessee is not interested in pursuing its 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…

Eternity Builders, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 53(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 7233/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. 2 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as un-admitted 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 for the purpo…

Pradip Kumar Khator, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 3(3), Gurgaon

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

ITA 5774/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: PendingITAT Delhi18 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his Appeal. 2 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as un-admitted 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 for the purpo…

Vvr Mutually Aided Co-Operative Credit Society, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-11(4), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3/HYD/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad15 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devithe Vvr Mutually Aided Vs Income Tax Officer Cooperative Credit Society Ward 11(4) Hyderabad Hyderabad Pan:Aaabt2780N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey, DR

…Shri Mohd. Afzal undertook to inform the party and the date was announced in the Open Court. Thereafter, the matter came up for hearing on 3.12.2018 and thereafter Page 1 of 2 ITA No 3 of 2018 The VVR Mutually Aided Coop. Credit Society Hyderabad. [(1991) 38 ITD 320], we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee as not maintainable with the liberty to the assessee to seek recall of this order by showing reasonable cause for non-appearance, if any. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 15th March, 2019. (P. Madhavi Devi) Judicial Member Hyderabad,…