How many judgments cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.?

2,267 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 143(3).

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

38 ITD 320Income Tax Appellate Tribunal1991#8 most cited

What is CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. authority for?

An appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal can be dismissed for non-prosecution or treated as unadmitted when the appellant fails to appear, cooperate, or show diligence, in accordance with Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules. The law aids the vigilant, not those who sleep on their rights.

2,267

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 367,514 Indian tax judgments — from 2015 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. · Rule 19(2) Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules · appeal dismissed non-prosecution · appeal unadmitted · appellant non-cooperation · lack of diligence · opportunity of being heard · section 250 · appellate procedure

Also reported as

223 ITR 840

Sections most often in play

Section 250 Section 147 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25 india opportunity of being heard section 250 nfac interest total income document

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

Gulshan Kumar Mehdiratta, Saharanpur vs. ITO, Ward- 3(2), Saharanpur

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-admitted

ITA 3857/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

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

…appeal of 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…

Ashok Oberoi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, all the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 6351/DEL/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jan 2019AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri O.P. Kant

…assessee is not interested in prosecution of his appeals. 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 appeals are 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: "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 p…

Gemalsingh Mohansingh Solanki, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 1(2), Surat

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

ITA 620/SRT/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 250

…ich is an ex-parte order submitted that the assessee could not participate in the proceedings on the last date and the CIT(A) instead of passing the order on merits dismissed the assessee’s appeal for non- representation relying upon the Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del)amongst other decisions. In these circumstances it was his limited prayer that accepting his order undertaking the order may be set-aside to the file of the CIT(A) for a decision on merit. Reliance was placed upon the case of M/s.Himachal Salt Suppliers vs. ITO order dated 04.09.2018 in Page 2 of 2 Gemalsinh Mohansinh Solanki Vs. DCIT, Circle…

M/S Aina Construction, Surat vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle 2(3), Surat

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

ITA 476/SRT/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meena

Section 250

…(118 ITR 461) Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (MP)The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Chemipol V/s. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 Late Tukojirao Holkar (MP), 223 ITR 480. and CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del)etc., dismissed the appeal holding as under : “5.1.5. Respectfully, following these judicial pronouncements (supra), the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed for non-prosecution. On merit also, the appellant has failed to furnish any corroborative evidence of his claim. In view of the above, on merits also appeal deserves to…

Jagmoham Ramjidas Malhotra, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer Ward -1(3)(2), Surat

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

ITA 456/SRT/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Surat04 Jan 2019AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri O.P.Meenaआ.अ.सं./I.T.A. No.456/Srt/2018 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year : 2014-15 Jagmohan Ramjidas Malhotra, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, 7-D, Meghrath Apartment, Ward-1(3)(2), Surat. Bhattar Road, Surat – 395 007. [Pan: Abcpm 1022 B] अपीलाथ" Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent Shri Ramesh Malpani – Ca िनधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By Shri P.S.Choudhary – Sr.Dr राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By 09.01.2019 सुनवाई की तारीख/ Date Of Hearing: 11.01.2019 उ"ोषणा क" तारीख/Pronouncement On आदेश /O R D E R Per Diva Singh, Jm: 1. The Present Appeal Has Been Filed By The Assessee Assailing The Correctness Of The Order Dated 22.05.2018 Of Cit(A)-2, Surat Pertaining To 2014-15 Assessment Year On Various Grounds, However, Since The Parties Were Heard Only In Respect Of Ground No.1 To 3 The Same Are Reproduced Under : “1) That The Ex-Parte Appeal Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Cit(A)] Is Wrong & Bad-In-Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Hearing The Appellant. 2) That The Ex-Parte Appeal Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Wrong & Bad-In-Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Considering The Submission & Contentions Of The Appellant Furnished In The Form Of ‘Statement Of Facts’ Along With The Appeal & Also By Way Of Arguments Raised During The Assessment Proceedings As Re-Produced In The Assessment Order. 3) That The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(A) Dismissing The Appeal Of The Appellant Is Wrong & Bad-In-Law As The Same Has Been Passed Without Deciding The Various Grounds Of Appeal On Merits On The Basis Of Material Available On Record, Statement Of Facts & Grounds Of Appeal.”

Section 250

…ITR 461); Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) (MP); The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of M/s.Chemipol V/s. Union of India in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009; Late Tukojirao Holkar (MP), 223 ITR 480. and CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del)etc., It was his submission that on the last date of hearing i.e. 30.04.2018, the hearing could not take place when the appeal was fixed for hearing as it was a public holiday. It was submitted the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal noting that adjournment was sought. Referring to the adjournments sought by the assessee before the CIT(A) it was…

M/S. Kishan Sharma, Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 48(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1436/KOL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2019AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S, Godaraassessment Year:2013-14 M/S Kishan Sharma Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Vishnu Apartment,49/1, Ward-48(3), 3 Govt. V/S. Doctor Abani Dutta Road, Place (West), Kolkata- P.O. Salkia, 700001 Howrah-711106 [Pan No.Aumps 3332 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherya, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 04-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2013-14 Challenges Correctness Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-14 Kolkata’S Order Dated 21.05.2018, Passed In Case No.66/Cit(A)-14/Wd-48(3)/2016-17, 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: "The Appeal Does Not Mean Merely Filing Of The Appeal But Effectively Pursuing It."

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member Assessment Year:2013-14 M/s Kishan Sharma Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Vishnu Apartment,49/1, Ward-48(3), 3 Govt. V/s. Doctor Abani Dutta Road, Place (West), Kolkata- P.O. Salkia, 700001 Howrah-711106 [PAN No.AUMPS 3332 H] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Arindam Bhattacherya, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 03-01-2019 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 04-01-2019 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R This assessee’s appeal for assessment y…

Sunny Yadav, Noida vs. DCIT, Central Circle, Noida

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

ITA 3331/DEL/2018[2015-16]Status: FixedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2015-16

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…

M/S. Greenfield Estates, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 5635/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiya & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year: 2010-11 Greenfield Estates Addl. Cit C/O. Synergy One House, Vs Range-1 Plot No.93, Institutional Udyog Vihar Area, Sector-32 Gurgaon Gurgaon Pan Aaifg6397A (Appellant) (Respondent)

…n that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee, placing reliance on the ratio of decisions in the following cases :- 1. CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del); 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal is filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 03.01.2019. (SUCHITRA KAMBLE) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- .01.2019…

M/S. Action Enclave Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1910/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2019AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Vice-(Kz) & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…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 January 02, 2019. (S.S.…

Sri Sanmathi Ambanna, Chitradurga vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax Davanagere Range, Davanagere

In the result, the assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2009-10 is allowed

ITA 782/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore02 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N. V. Vasudevan & Shri Jason P Boazassessment Year : 2009-10 Shri Sanmathi Ambanna, Vs. The Joint Commissioner Of Prop: M/S. Mahadevi Transport, Income-Tax, Railway Station Road, Davanagere Range, Challakere, Davanagere. Chitradurga – 577 522. Pan : Agjpa 3024 B Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri. Pranav Krishna, Advocate Revenue By : Shri. Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl. Cit Date Of Hearing : 17.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : .12.2018

For Appellant: Shri. Pranav Krishna, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryavamshi, Addl. CIT

Section 269SSection 271DSection 273

…f the Act. On appeal, the CIT(A), Davangere, vide the impugned order dated 08.12.2016 dismissed the Page 3 of 9 asessee’s appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution following, inter alia, the decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del). 3.1 Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), Davangere dated 08.12.2016, upholding the levy of penalty of Rs.3,20,000/- by the JCIT, Davangere u/s 271D of the Act for Assessment Year 2009-10, the assessee has preferred this appeal before the Tribunal, wherein he has raised the following grounds: 1. The order of the Authorities below in so far as…

Anshu Singhal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 24(1), New Delhi

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

ITA 4062/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 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 Page 1 of 2 Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 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…

Piyush Jain, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Ward- 2(1), Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 4020/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y.: 2009-10

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 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I Page 1 of 3 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…

Vipin Arora, Rudrapur vs. ITO, Ward- 1(5), Rudrapur

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

ITA 3683/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 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 Page 1 of 2 Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 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…

Y Axis Realty Solutions, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 4(4), Gurgaon

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

ITA 3682/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 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 its 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…

Yogesh Kumar Loond, Noida vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1481/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H. S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sridhar Dora, 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…

Jenson & Nicholson (India) Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

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

ITA 1466/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Jan 2019AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sridhar Dora, Sr. DR

Section 253

Behani Brothers, Malda vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Malda Circle, Malda

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 1353/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “SMC” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S, Godara, Judicial Member ITA No.1352-1353/Kol/2018 Assessment Year:2014-15 Behani Brothers Narayanpur, Malda, Pin. No.732141 [PAN No.AAKFM 0553 C] Income Tax Officer, बनाम / Ward-3(1), Malda V/s. Behan Brothers Circle, Malda Rabindra Avenue, Malda, Pin-732101 [PAN No.AAFFB 3686 E] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ" /Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Radheshyam, CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 31-12-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 31-12-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R All these two cases…

Behani Brothers, Malda vs. ITO, Ward - 3(1), Malda Circle, Malda

In the result, both the appeals of the assessee are dismissed for non- prosecution

ITA 1352/KOL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri S.S, Godara

Section 143(3)

M/S Emaar Mgf Construction Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 928/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y.: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SH. SRIDHAR DORA, SR. DR

…w of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. Page 1 of 3 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 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted 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 purpo…

M/S Mercury Rubber Mills, Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 2191/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi31 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms Suchitra Kamble

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Pratima M. Biswas, CIT DR

…n:- “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 reference, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 3. Commissioner of Income-tax vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd, 38 ITD 320 (Del.), wherein the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, was fixed for hearing. But on the date of hearing nobody represented the revenue/appellant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inheren…