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. Hanuman Apartment Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle - 9, Kolkata

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

ITA 2122/KOL/2018[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2006-07 M/S Hanuman Apartment Acit, Circle-9, बनाम Pvt. Ltd., 156-A, Rabindra Kolkata / Sarani, Room No.213, V/S. Kolkata-700013 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, Jcit-Sr-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2006-07, Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata’S Order Dated 31.08.2018 Passed In Case No.401/Cit(A)-16/Cir-9/2006-07, Involving Proceedings U/S. 144 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’.

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2006-07 M/s Hanuman Apartment ACIT, Circle-9, बनाम Pvt. Ltd., 156-A, Rabindra Kolkata / Sarani, Room No.213, V/s. Kolkata-700013 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri C.J. Singh, JCIT-SR-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 06-03-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 15-03-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2006-07, arises against the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals)-16, Kolkata’s order d…

Sonu Kumar Bhagat, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 63(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1709/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A.T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Sonu Kumar Bhagat Vs. Ito, Ward-63(2), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Sonu Kumar Bhagat Vs. ITO, Ward-63(2), Kolkata Flat No. 3A, Block 5, Raghunathpur, Techaria, Kolkata-59. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ALXPB 3479 N .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri Radhey Shyam, CIT DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 12/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 15/03/2019 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment year 2012-13, is directed against t…

Shri Hari Isan Chaudhary, Vadodara vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2)(1), Vadodara

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1142/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shri Hari Isna Chaudhary Ito, Ward-1(2)(1) C-376/77, Anandbaug Society Vs Vadodara. Susen Tarsali Road Makarpura Vadodara 390 010. Pan : Abdpc 3398 M अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Dr.Rajesh Meena, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 14/03/2019 O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-5, Vadodara Dated 22.1.20197 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2012-13 Challenging Addition Under Section 69A Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. On The Last Date Of Hearing I.E. On 5.1.2018 & 25.1.2019 None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. , Accordingly Hearing Was Adjourned To 14.3.2019. On This Date Also None Appeared. 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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Rajesh Meena, Sr.DR
Section 69A

…hat the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the ITA No.1142 /Ahd/2017 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 14th March, 2019. (RAJPAL YADAV) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated, 14/03/2019…

Irshad, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5740/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2009-10
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, satisfy the Bench for non- appearance on the date of hearing, 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 heari…

M/S Aakriti Hotels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 842/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt. Beena A. Pillai & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR
Section 253

…m of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice, (2) The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (I) shall not by. itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted." B. The ITAT in the-case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had occasion to consider the aspect of-admissibility of appeal for hearing by observing as under: "4. A judicial body has certain inherent powers. Decisions are .taken for the purpose of proper and .expeditious disposal of the appeals in present climate-of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of min…

Smt.Ancy George Valy, Kottayam vs. The ITO, Kottayam

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

ITA 443/COCH/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin13 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.A.S.Bindhu, Sr.DR

…nt of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in ITA No.443/Coch/2018. 2 Smt.Ancy George Valy. CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. However, if the assessee so desires, shall be free to move an application to this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order, after explaining reasonable cause for non-appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on this 13th day of March, 2019. (Chand…

Shri Gopal Krishna Dev Shriavadi Math, Honavar vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Range (E), Hubli

In the result, assessee’s appeal for Assessment Year 2014-15 is dismissed in limine

ITA 2585/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore13 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15 Shri Gopal Krishna Dev Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Shri Avadi Math, Income Tax, 126, Koanallai Road Mallapur, Range – Exemption, Honavar, Hubli. Karnataka – 581 327. Pan:Aaits 3259 H Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. Rajasekhar, Addl. CIT

…the totality of the facts, we are, thus, left with no option but to infer that that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, following the ratio of decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) and considering the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in such a situation; we do not admit the appeal for consideration and dismiss the appeal in limine for want of prosecution of the case. The assessee is, however, at liberty to move the Tribunal showing out sufficient reason(s) and/or reasonable cause for f…

Sri.Joseph Abraham, Kottayam vs. The ITO, WD-2, Kottayam

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

ITA 553/COCH/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Mar 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: S/Shri Chandra Poojari, Am & George George K., Jm

…ing the appeal, and no useful I.T.A. No.533/C/2018 purpose would be served by adjourning the hearing. Considering these facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules, as were considered in the case of Multiplan India, reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) and in view of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, reported in 223 ITR 480, we dismiss the appeal in limine. However, if the assessee is at liberty to give explanation in regard to its non- appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing before the Tribunal by filing a Miscel…

Siddharth M Bacchawat, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-5(2)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2469/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 2469/Ahd/2017 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14) Siddharth M Bacchawat Ito बनाम/ 2, Manek Atambh Flat Ward-5(2)(4), Vs. Pragati Society Ahmedabad. Navarangpura, Ahmedabad- 380009 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Alv Pb7 290 F .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) अपीलाथ" ओर से /Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से / Aditya Shukla, Sr. Dr Respondent By : सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of 08/03/2019 Hearing घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of 12/03/2019 Pronouncement आदेश/O R D E R Per Pradip Kumar Kedia - Am:

For Appellant: None

…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…

Fortune Developers, Rajkot-Gujarat vs. The Asstt. Commr. of Income Tax, Cir.-2, Rajkot-Gujarat

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

ITA 122/RJT/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot11 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Praveen Verma, 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 11 - 03- 2019 (WASEEM…

Smt. Ritaben Yogeshbhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 871/AHD/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 871/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt.Ritaben Yogeshbhai Shah Ito, Ward-7(3) Prop: Rushabh Chemicals Vs Ahmedabad. C-402, Sukun 4, Parishram Tower Ankur Road, Narangpura Ahmedabad. Pan : Aexpg 9121 K अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Aoitya Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 07/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2019 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-10, Ahmedabad Dated 29.11.2016 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2009-10 Challenging Levy Of Penalty Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To The Assessee By Regd. Ad Post. The Same Was Served As The Ad Slip Has Been Returned By The Postal Authority & Placed On Record. Assessee Has Not Filed Any Adjournment Application Nor Intimated About Reasons For Her Non-Appearance On The Date Of Hearing. 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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Aoitya Shukla, Sr.DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stand dismissed for ITA No.871 /Ahd/2017 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 11th March, 2019. (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

M/S. Croissance Trading Pvt. Ltd, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward-1(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2475/AHD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2475/Ahd/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2013-14 M/S.Croissance Trading P.Ltd,. Ito, Ward-1(1)(3) 426, 4Th Floor Vs Ahmedabad. Super Mall, C.G. Road Navrangpura Ahmedabad 380 006. Pan : Aadcc 3111 A अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Aoitya Shukla, Sr.Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 08/03/2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 11/03/2019 O R D E R Per Rajpal Yadav: Assessee Is In Appeal Before The Tribunal Against Order Of The Ld.Cit(A)-1, Ahmedabad Dated 11.9.2017 Passed For The Asstt.Year 2013-14. 2. None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To The Assessee By Regd. Ad Post At The Address Mentioned In Form No.36. However, The Same Was Returned By The Postal Authority With Remark “Now Known”. The Assessee Has Not Intimated To The Registry About Any Change Of Address. Assessee Has Not Filed Any Adjournment Application Nor Intimated Reasons For Its Non-Appearance On The Date Of Hearing. It Is Also Noticed That The Appeal Of The Assessee Before The Ld.Cit(A) Was Also Dismissed Due To Delay In Filing Appeal By More Than

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Aoitya Shukla, Sr.DR

…year. In view of this fact, it is presumed that the assessee is not serious about prosecuting its appeal, therefore, appeal of the assessee is 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 11th March, 2019. (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Rajbir Singh, Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward-11(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 2588/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2014-15 Rajbir Singh, Vs. Ito, Vpo-Machhgarh, Ward-11(2), Ballabgarh, Faridabad. Faridabad. Pan: Cslps0214B (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Amit Jain, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2019 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, 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 at the time of hearing itself on 11.…

Oracle Farms LLP, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed indicated above

ITA 3740/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Katoch, Sr. DR

…e assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee in limine. 4. In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 11th March, 2019. sd/- sd/- (H.S. SIDHU) (L.P. SAHU) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 11/03/2019 Veena…

Sh. Om Prakash, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4750/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Hauthang, Sr.D.R

…I.T.A. No.4750/DEL/2015 the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, therefore, hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, placed 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, dismissing the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal o…

M/S Ksmn & Company, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2237/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Mar 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri R.K. Pandaassessment Year: 2011-12 Ksmn & Company, Vs. Acit, C/O Ksmn & Co., Ca, Circle 37(1), 137, Tribhuvan Complex, New Delhi. Ishwar Nagar, Mathura Road, New Delhi. Pan: Aaifk7757L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.03.2019 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.03.2019 Order Per R.K. Panda, Am: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 15Th March, 2016 Of The Cit(A)-20, New Delhi, Relating To Assessment Year 2011-12. This Appeal Was Last Fixed For Hearing On 27Th December, 2018 & Since None 2. Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, This Case Was Adjourned For Hearing To Today, I.E., 11Th March, 2019. However, Despite Notice, 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 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 Surender Pal, 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 at the time of hearing itself 11.03.…

Sahkari Ganna Vikas Samiti Limited, Shahjahanpur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1, Bareilly

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

ITA 123/LKW/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow08 Mar 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D Jain & Shri T.S. Kapoora.Y. 2013-14

…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…

Springfield International Limited, Mumbai vs. ITO, Ward-2(1)(3), Vadodara

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2674/AHD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…ar – 2010-11 High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar-vs-CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, are inclined to dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution. However the assessee is at liberty to apply for the recall of the order within the prescribed time after furnishing the suitable reasons for non-appearance.…

Assadullah Allie, Srinagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Srinagar

In the result, the assessee’s appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 142/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar07 Mar 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arorai. T. A. No. 142/(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Charan Dass (D.R.)
Section 143(3)

…is principle is embodied in the well known dictum “VIGILANTIBUS, NON DORMENTIBUS, JURA SUBVENIUNT’. The principle has been invoked in many a decision, as: Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP); CIT v. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismissing the appeals in limine for want of prosecution. Reference here may also be drawn to the decision in CIT v. B.N. Bhattachargee [1979] 118 ITR 461 (SC), wherein it stands clarified that preferring an appeal does not mean merely filing the appeal papers, but effectively pursuing it. The Apex Court has per its’ recent larger bench dec…

M/S. Abhik Tradelinks Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 6(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 942/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Mar 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 942/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Abhik Tradelinks Private Limited..............................…………………………...Appellant 29A, Weston Street, 3Rd Floor, Room No. 5C, Kolkata – 700 012. [Pan: Aakca 4001 C] Ito, Ward 6(4), Kolkata...................…………………………………………..............Respondent P-13, Chowringhee Square, 6Th Floor, Kolkata – 700 069. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Shankar Halder, Sr. Dr, Jcit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : March 07, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 07, 2019 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – 13, Kolkata Dated 19.01.2018 Whereby He Dismissed The Appeal Of The Assessee Ex-Parte.

…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 7th Marc…