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.

Sandeep Aggarwal, Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3014/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishisandeep Aggarwal Vs. Acit, 34, Shanti Vihar, Delhi Central Circle-10, Pan: Aajpa8226B Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Janardhan Das, Sr. 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…

Mr.Anuj Madhukar Kumar, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (International Taxation) Circle-1(2), Bangalore

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

ITA 523/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore15 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K.N. Dhandapani, JCIT (DR)

…alf of the assessee and there is no request for adjournment and hence, we infer that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Hence, respectfully following the Tribunal order rendered in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), we dismiss this appeal of the assessee as unadmitted. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the date mentioned on the caption page. (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dated, the 15th February, 2019. /MS/ Page 3 of 3 Copy to: 1. Appellant 4. CIT(A) 2. Responden…

Poineer Pollution Control and Air Systems P. Ltd, Gwalior vs. ITO (TDS), Gwalior

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated

ITA 604/AGR/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra14 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: : Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri Dr. Mitha Lal Meena

…inferred that the assessee is not serious in pursuing its appeals. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeals of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of 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. In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed, as indicated above. Order pronounced in the open court on 18.02.2019. (Sudhanshu Srivastava) Accountant Member Dated: 18.02.2019 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2)…

Sri Vicky Jaiswal, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 23(1), Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 157/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

Section 271(1)(b)

…s 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 Holkar –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. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 14, 2019. (Sat…

Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

In the result, appeals and stay applications of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 5717/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

…s of the assessee are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 3. In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but…

Umesh Kumar Dhiman, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Meerut

In the result, appeals and stay applications of the Assessee are dismissed

ITA 5716/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

…s of the assessee are liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 3. In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal but…

Sher Singh Yadav, Udham Singh Nagar vs. ITO, Ward-1(5), Udham Singh Nagar

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5587/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…l 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 Sushila Coke & Minerals, Hazaribagh vs. ITO WD-2(2), Hazaribagh

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

ITA 312/RAN/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi13 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2009-10 M/S Sushila Coke & Commissioner Of Income- बनाम Minerals, Suresh Colony, Tax, Ravindra Path, / Hazaribagh V/S. Hazaribagh [Pan No. Abbfs 9152 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Chandan Das, Jcit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals) Hazaribag’S Order Dated 08.09.2016 Passed In Case No.19/Hzb/2015-16 Involving Proceedings U/S 147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; In Short ‘The Act’.

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RANCHI BENCH “SMC” RANCHI Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2009-10 M/s Sushila Coke & Commissioner of Income- बनाम Minerals, Suresh Colony, tax, Ravindra Path, / Hazaribagh V/s. Hazaribagh [PAN No. ABBFS 9152 R] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Chandan Das, JCIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 arises against the Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeals) Haz…

Shri Fakirchand Damodardas Agrawal, Ahmedabad vs. The Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1295/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Amarjit Singh)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rita Dokania, 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 13 - 02- 2019 (AMARJI…

M/S. Ravikiran Ceramics Pvt. Ltd., Anand vs. The ACIT, Central Cicle-1, Baroda

Appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 963/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Feb 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No.963/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year: 2004-2005

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

…the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal before the Tribunal, therefore, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed ITA No.963 /Ahd/2014 2 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 13th February, 2019. (AMARJIT SINGH) JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Maa Transport Agency, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Asansol, Paschim Medinipur

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

ITA 750/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Feb 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Dr. A.L. Sainiassessment Year :2011-12 Maa Transport Agency V/S. Income Tax Officer, C/O Kanchan Sadhu, Ward-1(2), Permer Advocate, Building, 54, G.T. Vivekanandapark, P.O. Road, (West), Nr. Ramkrishnamission, Dist. B.N.R. P,O. Pachim Bardhaman, Pin- Asansol, Dist. 713305 Pachm Bardhaman, [Pan No.Aakfm 9822 A] Pin-7133-4 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 04-02-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-02-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per Bench:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2011-12 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Asansol’S Order Dated 28.02.2017, Passed In Case No.165/Cit(A)/Asl/Ward-2(2)/Asl/14-15, In Proceedings U/S. 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Filed By The Assessee In Spite Of Issue Of Notice By Rpad. It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Serious In Prosecuting This Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non-Prosecution. For This View, We Find Support From The Following Decisions:- "1. In The Case Of Cit Vs B.N.Bhattacharjee & Another, Reported In 118 Itr 461 [Relevant Pages 477 & 478] Wherein Their Lordships Have Held That:

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “C” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Dr. A.L. Saini, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2011-12 Maa Transport Agency V/s. Income Tax Officer, C/o Kanchan Sadhu, Ward-1(2), Permer Advocate, Building, 54, G.T. Vivekanandapark, P.O. Road, (West), NR. Ramkrishnamission, Dist. B.N.R. P,O. Pachim Bardhaman, Pin- Asansol, Dist. 713305 Pachm Bardhaman, [PAN No.AAKFM 9822 A] Pin-7133-4 .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By…

Manoj Kumar, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 2, Panipat

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5226/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…dmitted. 2 ITA.No.5226/Del./2018 Shri Manoj Kumar, Panipat. 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. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2820/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 M/S Rockland Media & Dcit Communication Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 11 Khasra No.70/1/1 Vs. New Delhi Ground Floor New Delhi 110 085

For Appellant: : NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R

…. 2818-2819 & 2820/Del/16 AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rockland Media and Communications P Ltd. Vs. DCIT 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…

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2819/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 M/S Rockland Media & Dcit Communication Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 11 Khasra No.70/1/1 Vs. New Delhi Ground Floor New Delhi 110 085

For Appellant: : NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R

…. 2818-2819 & 2820/Del/16 AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rockland Media and Communications P Ltd. Vs. DCIT 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…

M/S. Rockland Media and Communication Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals filed by assessee stand dismissed

ITA 2818/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Smt. Beena A Pillaiay: 2008-09 Ay: 2009-10 Ay: 2010-11 M/S Rockland Media & Dcit Communication Pvt.Ltd. Central Circle 11 Khasra No.70/1/1 Vs. New Delhi Ground Floor New Delhi 110 085

For Appellant: : NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Nidhi Srivastava, CIT, D.R

…. 2818-2819 & 2820/Del/16 AY: 2008-09, 2009-10 & 2010-11 Rockland Media and Communications P Ltd. Vs. DCIT 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…

Panasonic Industrial Asia Pte Ltd., Noida vs. DDIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6313/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Feb 2019AY 2005-06

Bench: : Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2005-06

…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 ITA No. 6313-D-15 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. Maateshwari Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1367/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

…s 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 Holkar –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. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 12, 2019. (Sat…

M/S. Colourful Barter Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. TRO - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1365/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata12 Feb 2019AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri Satbeer Singh Godara

…s 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 Holkar –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. Order pronounced in the open Court on February 12, 2019. (Sat…

M/S. L. M. Bhandari, Pune vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-Tax, Circle - 7, Pune

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

ITA 1728/PUN/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 Feb 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao, Am

For Appellant: Shri Sunil GanooFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma
Section 250(6)Section 36(1)(iii)

…ol Vs. Union of India & Ors. in Central Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 vide judgment dated 17th September, 2009. ii) CIT Vs. S. Cheniappa Mudaliar, AIR 1969 SC 1068, iii) Sunderlal Mannalal Vs. Nandramdas Dwarkadas, AIR 1958 iv) CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) v) CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & ANR 10 CTR 354 3 A.Y.2014-15 5. Aggrieved with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals), the assessee filed the present appeal before us mentioning the issues relating to various five grounds in the appeal on record. 6. Reading out of the said grounds of appeal, the Ld. Counsel submitted that the matter may be…

Gulab Rai Batra, Muktsar vs. The Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Bathinda

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

ITA 226/ASR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar11 Feb 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Sanjay Arora & Sh. N.K.Choudhryita No.226(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (Ld. DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE SH. SANJAY ARORA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. N.K.CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.226(Asr)/2015 Assessment Year:2010-11 Sh. Gulab Rai Batra, Vs. Pr. CIT, Kotkapura Road, Bathinda. Muktsar. [PAN:ABLPB 1793P] (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: None Respondent by: Sh. Sandeep Chauhan (Ld. DR) Date of hearing: 07.02.2019 Date of pronouncement: 07.02.2019 ORDER PER N.K.CHOUDHRY, JM: The instant appeal has been preferred by the Assessee/Appellant against the order dated 16/17.03.2015 passed by the Ld. Pr. CIT, Bathinda, u/s 263 of the I.T. A…