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.

Shri Advesh Sangappa Ghaniger, Belgaum vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(3), Belgaum

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2010-2011

ITA 307/PAN/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2010-11 Shri Adavesh Sangappa Ghaniger, The Income Tax Officer, Mole Circle, Main Road, Ward – 1(3), At & Post: Ainapur – 591303 Belgaum Tal : Athani, Dist: Belgaum Vs. Pan: Amtpg4109R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Y.V. Raviraj (DR)

Section 143Section 246ASection 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)

…peal ex-party without giving reasonable opportunity to pursue its appeal. We notice that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by applying the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.) dated 27th May, 1991 on the ground that the assessee has failed to appear on three successive dates. We notice that the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non- prosecution by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundass Assessment Year: 2010-11 Luthra (…

M/S Gajalaxmi Transport, Belgavi vs. The Joint Commissioner of Income Tax, Range - 2, Belgavi

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee for assessment year 2008-2009

ITA 287/PAN/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Shamim Yahya (Am) & Shri Ram Lal Negi (Jm) Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/S Gajalaxmi Transport, The Joint Commissioner Of #16, Sukh Sagar Complex, Income Tax, Range-2, Near Hotel Ramdev, Nehru Nagar, Belgaum District Belgaum Vs. Pan: Aagfg5192D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Pravin B. Chinnannavar (CA)For Respondent: Shri Y.V. Raviraj (DR)

Section 250(4)Section 250(6)Section 269TSection 271E

…the Ld. counsel, the Ld. CIT (A) has passed the impugned order ex-party. We notice that the learned CIT (A) has dismissed the appeal of the assessee by applying the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del.) dated 27th May, 1991 on the ground that the assessee has failed to appear on 04.09.2017 and 13.09.2017. We notice that the learned CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee. The Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) Nagpur vs. Premkumar Arjundass Luthra (HUF) [2017] 297 CTR 6…

Sundar Shaw L/H of Lal Behari Shaw, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Circle-26, Kolkata

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

ITA 2340/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.S.Reddy, Am & Shri S.S.Godara, Jm] I.T.A No. 2340/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Sundar Shaw, Legal Heir Of Lal Behari Shaw -Vs.- Acit, Circle-26, Kolkata [Pan : Akpls 7769 M] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S. Halder, Sr. DR

Section 147

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.S.Reddy, AM & Shri S.S.Godara, JM] I.T.A No. 2340/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Mr. Sundar Shaw, Legal Heir of Lal Behari Shaw -vs.- ACIT, Circle-26, Kolkata [PAN : AKPLS 7769 M] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri S. Halder, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 18.12.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 28.12.2018 ORDER Per S.S.Godara, JM 1. This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2008-09 arises from the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata’s order in appeal No.134/CIT(A)- 7/Kol/Cir-26…

Dinesh Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 22(3), New Delhi

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

ITA 1265/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: : Shri K.N. Chary & Shri M.L. Meenaassessment Year: 2008-09

…rosecute the appeal even after so many 2 calls made to the assessee. 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 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. Minecode Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 3469/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rinku Singh, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “E”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2008-09 Minecode Solutions Pvt. Ltd. ITO, (earlier known as M/s. Mine Ward-6(4) Vs. Code Solutions Pvt. Ltd.) New Delhi. 149-D, Block U & V, Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi 110 088 PAN AAECM4666L (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Shri Rinku Singh, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 27/12/2018 Date of 27/12/2018 pronouncement O R D E R PER O.P. KANT, A.M. This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(Appeals)-IX, New Delhi v…

Tripta Rani, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-7(2), Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 998/CHANDI/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…vant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 4. The above view further finds support from the following decisions also: i) CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd: 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 5. Respectfully following the decisions [supra], I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 24.12.2018. ( संजय गग" ) (SANJAY GARG) "या"यक सद"य/ Judicial Member Da…

Maneet Dewan, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-VII, Ludhiana

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1010/CHANDI/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh24 Dec 2018AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Manjit Singh, Sr.DR

…vant pages 477 & 478] wherein their Lordships have held that: “The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 4. The above view further finds support from the following decisions also: i) CIT v. Multiplan India (P) Ltd: 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT: 223 ITR 480(MP) 5. Respectfully following the decisions [supra], I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court. (संजय गग" ) (SANJAY GARG) "या"यक सद"य/ Judicial Member Dated: 21.01.2019…

M/S Hasham Investments & Trading Co.Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-5(1)(1), Bangalore

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

ITA 1038/BANG/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore21 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri. Jason P. Boaz

For Appellant: Shri. B. K. Manjunath, CAFor Respondent: Shri. Vikas K. Suryawamshi, Addl. CIT

…2.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER : The present appeal is filed against the ex-party order passed by the CIT (A), dt.19.02.2018, whereby the CIT (A) had applied the judgment of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the matter of CIT v. Multiplan [38 ITD 320], for dismissing the appeal of the assessee. ITA.1038/Bang/2018 Page - 2 02. At the out set the Ld. AR had submitted that the matter is required to be remanded back with a direction to the CIT (A) to decide the matter on merits and had also submitted that as the assessment order was passed in the name of a entity which ceased to exist in view of…

M/S. Delhi Development Authority Common Wealth Games 2010, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3467/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

…esumed that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeals 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); and 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. We may 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 purpose of adjudication of the appeals. Order pronounced in the open court on 21st December, 2018. (N.S. SAIN…

M/S. Delhi Development Authority Common Wealth Games 2010, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 3466/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri N.S. Sainiassessment Year: 2007-08 Assessment Year: 2008-09

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.S. Rana, CIT DR

Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Ludhiana vs. DCIT, C-7, Ludhiana

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

ITA 767/CHANDI/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 767/Chd/2018 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2014-15 Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, The Dcit, Circle 7, बनाम 30-A, Aggar Nagar, Ludhiana Ferozepur Road, Ludhiana "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Aaypa5297P अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.D. Gupta, Sr.DR

…BUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of rule ITA No. 767/Chd/2018- Sh. Rajesh Aggarwal, Ludhiana 2 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. 3. 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 prepa…

M/S. Abad Exports Ltd, Cochin vs. The ACIT, Cochin

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

ITA 79/COCH/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

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

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

…e for non-prosecution, by following the judgment 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 CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. However, if ITA No.79/Coch/2018. 2 M/s.Abad Exports Limited. 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 p…

Shri Ajay Kumar Gupta, Jaipur vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 143/JPR/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Parting, It Is Appropriate To State That In Case The Assessee

For Appellant: None (date was noted)For Respondent: Shri Ashok Khana (JCIT)

…scheduled date of hearing. It is thus apparent that the assessee is not interested in pursuing prosecution of the present appeal. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgment of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine. 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to state that in case the assessee is serious in pursuing its appeal filed, then it would be at liberty if so advised to pray…

Pradeep Mdalmia & Sons, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-55(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2849/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

…2 I.T.A. No.2849/DEL/2018 the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. I, therefore, hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, place 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…

Laksons Footwear Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2823/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L. Anuragi, Sr.D.R

…the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. I, 2 I.T.A. No.2823/DEL/2018 therefore, hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, place 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…

Vikas Yadav Prop., Rewari vs. ITO, Rewari

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

ITA 841/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y.: 2008-09

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 his 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…

Sh. Vijay Kumar Agrawal, Saharanpur vs. DCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 1610/DEL/2015[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y.: 2013-14

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

…of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his 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. Ranbhumi Tie Up Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 13(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1476/KOL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy] I.T.A. No. 1476/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/S. Ranbhumi Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.………………………………………….…….……...Appellant [Pan :Aaecr 2334 M] Ito, Ward-13(3), Kolkata………...……………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances By: None, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Piyush Mukherjee, Jcit, Dr Appearing On Behalf Of The Respondent. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 29Th , 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 19Th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 144

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA ‘SMC’ BENCH, KOLKATA [Before Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Accountant Member] I.T.A. No. 1476/Kol/2018 Assessment Year: 2012-13 M/s. Ranbhumi Tie Up Pvt. Ltd.………………………………………….…….……...Appellant [PAN :AAECR 2334 M] ITO, Ward-13(3), Kolkata………...……………………………….……………..…. Respondent Appearances by: None, appeared on behalf of the assessee. Shri Piyush Mukherjee, JCIT, DR appearing on behalf of the Respondent. Date of concluding the hearing : November 29th , 2018 Date of pronouncing the order : December 19th , 2018 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :- This appeal filed by the ass…

Jitendra Nath Bag, Paschim Medinupur vs. ITO, Ward - 1(1), Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur

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

ITA 2265/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. S.S.Viswanethra Ravi & Sh. A.L.Sainijitendra Nath Bag, Vs Ito, Ratan Kumar Guha, Ward-1(1), Midnapore, Advocate, At.-Kshudiram Keranitola, Paschim Nagar, Midnapore, Dist.- Midnapore, Pin-721101. Paschim Medinipur, Pin-721101. Pan-Ahcpb0582H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh.S. Halder, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 19.12.2018 Order Per S.S. Viswanethra Ravithis Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 30.10.2013 Passed By Cit(A)-Xxxvi, Kolkata For Ay 2007-08. 2. At The Time Of Hearing, We Find No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Filed Seeking Adjournment. It Is Noted That The Assessee Filed The Appeal Before Cit(A), Challenging The Action Of The Ao Imposing Penalty U/S 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (In Short “Act”). Before Cit(A), There Was No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee & The Cit(A) Decided The Issue Against The Assessee By Confirming The Penalty Imposed By The Ao. Before Us, It Is Noted That The Registry, Itat, Kolkata Issued Notice Dated 01.102.018 Intimating The Fixation Of Date Of Hearing On 24.10.2018 By Rpad. However, No One Representing The Assessee Appeared On 24.10.2018 & This Tribunal For Non-Appearance Of The Assessee, Adjourned The Appeal To 05.12.2018 I.E. Today. Accordingly, Registry, Itat Again Issued A Notice Dated

Section 271(1)(c)

…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 19.12.20…

Parmeshwar Dass Jain, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-50(2), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2545/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.L Anuragi, Sr.D.R

…the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. I, 2 I.T.A. No.2545/DEL/2018 therefore, hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, place 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…