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 366,470 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.

Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Surat vs. ITO, Ward3(2)(4), Surat

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

ITA 138/SRT/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Surat19 Aug 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinha & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.138/Srt/2025 Assessment Year: (2016-17) (Hybrid Hearing) Vithalbhai Harjibhai Patel, Vs. The Ito, 101-102, Harihari Society, Katargam Ward – 3(2)(4), Surat - 395004 Surat "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Abcpp0940K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Kamlesh Bhatt, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04/08/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 19/08/2025

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250Section 253(3)Section 271(1)(c)

…nt was not keen to pursue the appeal, and no material had been brough on record in support of the grounds taken in appeal. He relied on the decisions in cases of CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC), CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi Trib.) and Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd. vs. ITO (Delhi Trib.). Hence, the CIT(A) upheld the findings of the AO and dismissed the appeal. 8. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. The learned Authorized Representative (ld. AR) of the assessee filed a paper book, which includes le…

Sukhmeet Kaur, Amritsar vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-4(5), Amritsar

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

ITA 714/ASR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Amritsar18 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sh. Manoj Kumar Aggarwal & Sh. Udayan Dasgupta(Hybrid Hearing) I.T.A. No. 714/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18

Section 115BSection 142(1)Section 144Section 250

…his view has been affirmed by Hon’ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2985/Ahd/2010 vide their order dated 31/12/2013, wherein following the order of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of prosecution. 6.4 Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.” I.T.A. No. 714/Asr/2024 7 Assessment Year: 2017-18 5. Before the Tribunal the ld. AR of the assessee submitted that the amount was deposited…

Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Surat vs. ITO, Ward 3(3)(5), Surat

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

ITA 925/SRT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat18 Aug 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Ms Suchitra Raghunath Kamble & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.925/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2013-14) (Hybrid Hearing) Umesh Ramjibhai Pavasiya, Vs. Ito, 102, Vallabh Nagar Society, Ward -3(3)(5), Varachha Road, Opp – Baroda Surat Prestige, Surat - 395006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Afjpp2768Q (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""थ" /Respondent) Appellant By Shri Sapnesh Sheth, Ca Respondent By Shri Ajay Uke, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 17/07/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/08/2025

Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)Section 271(1)(c)Section 44ASection 68

…the appellant, which is at pages 2 to 4 of the appellate order. The decision of the CIT(A) is at para 5.1 to 5.4 of the appellate order. Due to repeated non-compliance by assessee, the CIT(A) relied upon the decisions in cases of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.), Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT, (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H), CIT vs. B. N. Bhattacharya, 118 ITR 461 (SC), M/s Bindra Warehousing Corporation vs. ITO, ITA Nos.201 to 203/Jab/2015 and observed that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal f…

Shilpa Electrical Engineers (India) Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-3(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 910/HYD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad13 Aug 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri Manjunatha G

For Appellant: MS K. Prabhavati, AdvocateFor Respondent: Sri Siva Prasad SV, Sr. AR
Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…judicial precedents i.e., decision of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs., Commissioner of Wealth Tax [1997] 223 ITR 480 (MP) and the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of CIT vs., Multiplan India Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del.). However, not considered the issue on merits. No doubt, the assessee did not appear and filed relevant details when the case was posted for hearing. Learned Counsel for the Assessee explained the reasons for not appearing. According to the Learned Counsel for the Assessee, the Director of the appellant-company was fell sick and due to his i…

Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Kanpur vs. ITO Circle-1(3)(1), Kanpur

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

ITA 128/LKW/2024[2017-18]Status: HeardITAT Lucknow12 Aug 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 68Section 69A

…I.T.A. No.128/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year:2017-18 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL LUCKNOW BENCH ‘A’, LUCKNOW BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI ANADEE NATH MISSHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.128/Lkw/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Shri Ajay Kumar Tiwari, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 133/60 Plot No. 47, Flat No. 6, Circle-1(3)(1), Anandpuri, Kanpur. Kanpur. PAN:ABTPT1975E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by Ms. Gurneet Kaur, Advocate Respondent by Shri R. K. Agarwal, CIT (D.R.) O R D E R PER ANADEE NATH MISSHRA:A.M. (A) This appeal vide I.T.A. No.128/Lkw/2024 has been filed by the assessee p…

Mahendrabhai Patel, Ahmedabad vs. ITO Ward 3(3)(2) Ahmedabad, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal is accordingly allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 993/AHD/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad12 Aug 2025AY 2012-2013

Bench: Ms.Suchitra R. Kamble & Shri Makarand V.Mahadeokarasstt.Year : 2012-13 Mahendrabhai Patel Ito, Ward-3(3)(2) 51, Shivranjini Society Vs. Ahmedabad. Satellite, Azad Society So Ahmedabad. Pan : Awspp 5117 H (Applicant) (Responent) : Shri Mehul B. Dhrangadhariya, Ar Assessee By : Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.Dr Revenue By सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 30/07/2025 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 12/08/2025

For Appellant: Shri Amit Pratap Singh, Sr.DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250

…ces, nor did he appear or file submissions. The CIT(A), relying on judicial precedents including CIT v. B.N. Bhattacharjee [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)], and CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del)], held that the assessee had failed to prosecute the appeal and, in the absence of any material rebutting the findings of the AO, confirmed the addition of Rs.37,76,400/- and dismissed the appeal ex parte. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. On the facts and in th…

Shikha Ganeriwal, Guwahati vs. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Delhi

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

ITA 691/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 Aug 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri Saurav Harsh, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gaurav Awasthi, JCIT-DR
Section 145(3)Section 147Section 250Section 69A

…ce the 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" 3. 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 neither 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 Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the p…

Amarjit Singh, Ludhiana vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 6(1) Ludhiana, Ludhiana

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

ITA 1171/CHANDI/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh29 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: SHRI. LALIET KUMAR (Judicial Member), SHRI. KRINWANT SAHAY, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No. 1171 /Chd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Shri Amarjit Singh बनाम The ITO C/o V V Bhalla & Company Ward 6(1) SCF-39, Rishi Nagar Main Market, Ludhiana Adjoining Subway, Ludhiana-141001, Punjab स्थायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: ABTPS8558B अपीलार्थी/Appellant प्रत्यर्थी/Respondent निर्धारिती की ओर से / Assessee by : Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.A राजस्व की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr

For Appellant: Shri Pankaj Bhalla, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 144ASection 147Section 148Section 151Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270A

…ng that no submissions were filed by the assessee despite having been granted sufficient opportunity. Relying on judicial precedents, inter alia, the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT in the case of Antikumar H. Shah vs. ACIT and CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Del)], the Ld. CIT(A) held that the appeal was liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 5. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A) the assessee preferred an appeal before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that the Ld. CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without serving the mandatory notice under section 25…

Creator Events Private Limited, Patna vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Patna

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

ITA 76/PAT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 76/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Creator Events Pvt. Limited,…….….………Appellant H. No. 123, Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014, Bihar [Pan:Aafcc3700R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148

…ITA No. 76/PAT/2025 (A.Y. 2015-2016) Creator Events Pvt. Limited IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, KOLKATA-PATNA ‘e-COURT’, KOLKATA [Hybrid Court Hearing] Before Shri Duvvuru RL Reddy, Vice-President (KZ) I.T.A. No. 76/PAT/2025 Assessment Year: 2015-2016 Creator Events Pvt. Limited,…….….………Appellant H. No. 123, Vijay Nagar, Rukunpura, Bailey Road, Patna-800014, Bihar [PAN:AAFCC3700R] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-2(1), Patna, Jay Prakash Bhawan, Income Tax Department, Patna-800001, Bihar Appearances by: N o n e, appeared on behalf of the assessee Shri Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT, ap…

Arun Kumar Mandal, Araria vs. ITO, Ward- 3 (3), Purnea

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

ITA 119/PAT/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Patna22 Jul 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy, Vice-(Kz) I.T.A. No. 119/Pat/2025 Assessment Year: 2017-2018 Arun Prasad Mondal,……………………………Appellant C/O. Shiv Narayan (Prop. Maa Dhaneshwari Khad Beej Bhandar), Bardha (Sikti), Araria-854333, Bihar [Pan:Bohpm1854A] -Vs.- Income Tax Officer,…………………………….Respondent Ward-3(3), Purnea, Near Jail Chowk, Nh-31, Purnea-854301, Bihar

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 270A

…also relied on the judgment of the Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of M/s. New Diwan Oil Mills -vs.- CIT [296 ITR 495] and also in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (MP), 223 ITR 480. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) similar view had been taken. The ld. CIT(Appeals), therefore, convinced that the assessee was not interested in prosecuting the appeal and, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted”. 9. By considering the totality of the facts and circumstances and in order to ensure the principle of natural justice, I am of the view…

Detective and Security Services, Vadodara vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 1025/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year 2015-16

For Appellant: Ms. Urvashi Shodhan, A.RFor Respondent: Shri Abhijit, Sr. D.R
Section 147Section 148Section 250

…nourable Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N Bhattacharjee and Another 118 ITR 461 ii) The Honourable M.P High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Hofkar Vs. CWT 223 ITR 480. (iii) ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Cit Vs. Multiplan India(P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 15,43,980/- being difference between receipts as per 26AS and receipts as per Audited Accounts. 4. The appellant firm craves the right to add to or alter, amend, substitute, delete or modify all or any of the above grounds of appeal.” 3. The assessee is a…

Arti Deepakkumar Pandit, Rajkot vs. Income Tax Officer, Dwarka

ITA 127/RJT/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Jul 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini. & Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 127/Rjt/2025 "नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2015-16) (Hybrid Hearing) Arti Deepakkumar Pandit Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 204,Shyam Dwarika Low Rise, Ito Ward – 1, Madhapar Chowkdi, Near Swami, Dwarka - 361335 Narayan Mandir, Rajkot - 360006 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Amnpp0638A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By :Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/05/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/07/2025

For Appellant: Ms. Amoli Gusani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. SR. DR
Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…umstances, in my considered opinion, appellant is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. As such I hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non-prosecution. In this regard, we place reliance upon following case laws: CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del)1. Estate of Late TukojiraoHokar vs. CWT 223 ITR 840 (M.P.)2. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H)3. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee and Another 118 ITR 461 (SC). Arti D. Pandit Therefore, considering the above factual and legal position, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-prosecution. As a result, the assessme…

Husain Ahamed, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward, Pratapgarh

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 420/JPR/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur04 Jul 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI NARINDER KUMAR (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rakesh Kumar Kabra, CA &For Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Ojha, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…has in Shree Balaji Woollen Mills vs ACIT, [2012] 28 taxmann.com 198 (Delhi) where none appeared on behalf of the assessee when appeals were called for hearing nor any request for adjournment was filed, following the CIT v. Multiplan (India) (P.) Ltd. [1971] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT [supra], dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. 10. The Hon'ble ITAT, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in M/s Bindra Warehousing Corporation, Itarsi vs ITO, ITA No. 153/Jab/2016 and in Jabalpur Sahkari Dugdh Sangh vs ITO, ITA No. 201 to 203/Jab/2015 has found assessee as not interested in…

Mr. Chengalraya Naidu Rajanbabu, Chennai vs. ITO, Corp. Ward.3(1), Chennai

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

ITA 1171/CHNY/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ss Viswanethra Ravi & Shri Jagadishआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.1171/Chny/2025 िनधा9रण वष9 /Assessment Year: 2017-18

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijay Kumar, JCIT
Section 143(3)

…n, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the addition without going into merits of the case relying on the order Chengalraya Naidu Rajanbabu :- 3 -: of ITAT, Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). 5. The Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), relied on the orders of lower authorities and submitted that the orders were passed ex- parte as the assessee has been non compliance to the notices issued. 6. We have heard the submissions of the Ld. DR and perused the material available on record. On perusal of the order of the Ld. CIT(A)…

Shree Bhakt Samaj Vikas Education Trust, Bodeli vs. Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax Exemption, Vadodara

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 775/AHD/2025[2021-22]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad25 Jun 2025AY 2021-22

Bench: Dr. Brr Kumar & Shri Siddhartha Nautiyal

For Appellant: Shri Rushin Patel, ARFor Respondent: Shri Alpesh Parmar, CIT DR
Section 11Section 12ASection 139(1)Section 143(1)

…al. This view has been affirmed by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2985/Ahd/2010 vide their order dated 31.12.2013, wherein following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. As a result, the appeal stands Dismissed.” 6. The assessee is in appeal before us against the aforesaid order passed by Ld. CIT(A) upholding the disallowance made by CPC, Benga…

Tasleem Bano, Jaipur vs. Ward-5(4) Income Tax Officer, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 171/JPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur23 Jun 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Ms. Apeksha Kalra, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT -DR a
Section 127Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 292B

…the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) (38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in pursuing its appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-pursuasion. 5.2. On merits: Ground No. 1: This ground is related to reopening of assessment. After verification of the details available with the Department, it was noticed that the appe…

Kamdhenu Foods, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 1 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 689/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.689/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 148Section 250

…Appellate Authority as it failed to give any response to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A). Therefore, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal applying the decision of Coordinate Bench, Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT reported in (1997) 223 ITR 480. 6. I have given my thoughtful consideration and unable to persuade to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities. Considering the fact that assessee could not substantiate its case by any represent…

Kamdhenu Foods, Sangli vs. ITO Ward 1 Sangli, Sangli

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

ITA 688/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.688/Pun/2025 Assessment Year : 2016-17 Kamdhenu Foods, Vs. Income Tax Officer, 177 Peth Nhag, Ward-1, Sangli Gavali Galli, Sangli – 416 416 Maharashtra Pan : Aaifk8508M Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Smt. Deepa KhareFor Respondent: Date of hearing
Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 250(6)

…Appellate Authority as it failed to give any response to the notices of hearing issued by ld.CIT(A). Therefore, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the assessee’s appeal applying the decision of Coordinate Bench, Delhi in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT reported in (1997) 223 ITR 480. 4. I have given my thoughtful consideration and unable to persuade to subscribe to the view taken by the lower authorities. Considering the fact that assessee could not substantiate its case by any represent…

Ramchandra Dagdu Nikam, Satara vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3, Satara

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

ITA 2552/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sharad A ShahFor Respondent: Shri Vishal Makawane
Section 133(6)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 250

…n without adjudicating the issue(s) involved on merits placing reliance on the decision(s) in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another [118 ITR 461 (SC)]; Estate of Late TukojiRaoHolker vs. CWT [223 IR 480 (MP)]; and CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [38 ITD 320 (Del.)]. The relevant observations and findings of the Ld. Addl./JCIT(A) are reproduced below : “G 3] A notice u/s. 250 along with the Remand Report as received from the Ld. AO was sent to the Appellant on 17/10/2024 vide DIN:ITBA/APL/F/APL_1/2024-25/1069743879(1) containing Annexure. The content of the same is as under:- 1. Please be informed tha…

Chandrakant Vaijanathappa Khanapure, Nanded vs. ITO Ward 1 Nanded, Nanded

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

ITA 779/PUN/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Ms.Astha Chandra & Dr.Dipak P. Ripoteआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.779/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Chandrakant Vaijanathappa V The Income Tax Officer, Khanapure, S Ward-1, Nanded. 34 Deep Nagar, Near Bsnl Office, Nanded – 431601. Maharashtra. Pan: Aropk0786G Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Dayanand Jawalikar – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 12/06/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 18/06/2025

Section 142Section 144Section 250Section 69A

…in Paragraph 3 of his order noted that assessee failed to respond to the notices dated 07.01.2021, 23.05.2023 and 30.11.2024. Therefore, ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution following the decision of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). The Hon’ble Rajasthan High Court in the case of Tribhuvan Kumar v. CIT [2007] 294 ITR 401, in which, the substantial question of law itself was to whether the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd., (supra) could have been applied to the facts of that case was decided in favour of the assessee.…