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 367,515 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. Aec Steels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2370/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Dec 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K.Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. DR

…erested in prosecution of the present appeal. 3. Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing. 4. In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for want of pros…

M/S Kruthika Souharda Pattina Sahakara Niyamita, Hospet vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Hospet

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013-

ITA 2558/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore05 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Jason P Boazi.T. A. No.2558/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) M/S. Kruthika Souharda Pattina Sahakara Niyamitha, Virupakshaeswara Complex, Main Bazar, Hospet. …. Appellant.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Kabila H, JCIT (D.R)

…“VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and 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), the appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2013- 14 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 5.12.2018. (JASON P BOAZ) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt. 5.12.2018. *Reddy gp 3 Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File.…

Virendra Bahadur Saxena, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward- 3(3), Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1598/DEL/2018[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…The appeal of assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 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…

Sh. Rippen Ahuja, Panipat vs. ACIT, Panipat

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

ITA 3184/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S Rippen Ahuja, Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-14(2), New Delhi. Prop. Narindra Carriers, Swastika Mour, G.T. Road, Panipat. Pan: Aarpa7358N Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 05.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 05.12.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 8.3.2013 In Appeal No.It/40/Ppt/Cit(A)/Knl/2011-12 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), Aaykar Bhawan Sector -12, Karnal (For Short Hereinafter Called “Ld. Cit(A)”).

…is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unad…

M/S. Partap Silicament (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3141/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2018AY 2007-08

…is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unad…

Shri Baru Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 6182/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: 2009-10 Baru Singh, Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward-2(1), Muzaffarnagar. C/O O.P. Sapra & Associates, C-763, New Friends Colony, New Delhi. Pan: Exfps8672L Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 04.12.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 04.12.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 2.03.2015 In Appeal No.165/2014-15/Mzr Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals), Muzaffarnagar (For Short Hereinafter Called “Ld. Cit(A)”). 2. When The Matter Is Called Today For Hearing, There Is No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. On 17.4.2018 Also When The Matter Was Called For Hearing

…is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unad…

M/S. Dev Constructions, Dehradun vs. Addl. CIT, Dehradun

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

ITA 4137/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Dec 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kanta.Y.: 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SH. B.S. RAJPUROHIT, SR. DR

…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 further find that the appeal filed by the Assessee is barred by 16 days and at the time of filing the appeal the Defect Notice was issued. But till date no application fo…

Pushpanjali Hospitality, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 20(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2050/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…The appeal of assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 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…

Pradeep Arya, Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 35(3), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2044/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…The appeal of assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 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…

Srh Infrastructure P.Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-24(2), New Delhi

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1880/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Dec 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…The appeal of assessee is, therefore, liable to be dismissed. 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…

Shri Ganpatlal Manroopji Soni, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(1)(4), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 547/AHD/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad30 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Ila M. Parmar, 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 30- 11- 2018 (WASEEM…

M/S. Laksons Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Faridabad vs. ACIT, Faridabad

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

ITA 3202/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2011-12 M/S. Laksons Footwear Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Acit, Plot No. 265, Sector-24, Faridabad Circle-Ii, Faridabad Pan :Aaacl3114B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…n that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. 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 appeal is 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: 2 "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…

Shri Prakash S.Vyas, Baroda vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1969/AHD/2014[1988-89]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Nov 2018AY 1988-89

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Ms. Madhumita Roy

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH, AHMEDABAD BEFORE SHRI PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & Ms. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.1969/Ahd/2014 (Assessment Year : 1988-89) Prakash S. Vyas, Vs. Income Tax Officer, C/o. Paras Service Station, Ward-2(2), Baroda Opp. Novino Batteries, Ayakar Bhavan, Makarpura, Race Course. Baroda-390 010 Baroda [PAN No. AAZPV 7918 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) .. Appellant by : --None-- Respondent by : Shri Lalit P. Jain, Sr. D.R. Date of Hearing 12/11/2018 29/11/2018 Date of Pronouncement O R D E R PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal has been…

Jagabandhu Traders Pvt. Ltd., Howrah vs. ITO, Ward - 13(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1338/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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 November 29, 2018. (S.S…

Concast Global Limited, Kolkata vs. Addl/Joint CIT, Range-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 915/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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 November 28, 2018. (S.S…

Class Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1631/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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 November 28, 2018. (S.S…

M/S. Balaji Merchants Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 5(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1380/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

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 November 28, 2018. (S.S…

Smt Rekha Malhotra, Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 28(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 1800/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Aby.T.Varkey & Sh. M.Balaganesh[Assessment Year: 2009-10] Vs Ito, Smt. Rekha Malhotra, K-465, New Alipore, Ground Floor, Ward-28(4), Kolkata-700053. Kolkata-700031. Pan-Adqpm9619J (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sourabh Kumar, Addl. Cit Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 27.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per M.Balaganeshthis Appeal Of The Assessee Arises Out Of The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xiv, Kolkata [In Short The Ld Cit(A)] In Appeal No.840/Cit(A)-Xiv/Kol/11-12 Dated 20.03.2013 Passed Against The Order Passed By The Ito, Ward-28(4), Kolkata [In Short The Ld. Ao] Under Section 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’) Dated 27.12.2011 For The Asst Year 2009-10. 2. This Appeal Was Fixed For Hearing On Several Dates. On 27.09.2018 The Case Was Adjourned To 27.11.2018. When The Case Was Called Up For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & No Adjournment Petition Was Preferred By The Assessee. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The 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)

…e, 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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” 3. In the case of Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) 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/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 inherent po…

Rahul Tyagi, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-30(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 1962/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Billaiyaassessment Year: 2012-13 Sh. Rahul Tyagi Ito, E-287, Ground Floor, East Vs Ward-30(4), Of Kailash, New Delhi- New Delhi 110048 Pan : Abnpt6844R (Appellant) (Respondent)

…on that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. I, 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 28.11.2018. (N. K. BILLAIYA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER *NEHA* Date:- .11.2018…

R.J. Education Foundation, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT (Exemptions), New Delhi

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

ITA 2494/DEL/2015[]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri K.Narasimha Charyassessment Year: - M/S R.J. Education Foundation, Vs Pr. Cit (Exemption), E-2, 26Th Floor, Pratyaksh Kar B-5/519, Ekta Garden, Bhawan, Dr. Shyama Prasad 9 I.P. Extension, New Delhi. Mukherjee Civic Centre, Pan: Aactr3075N Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, New Delhi. Appellant Respondent Assessee By None Revenue By Shri Surender Pal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 28.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 28.11.2018 Order Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order U/S 12Aa(1)(B)(Ii) R.W.S. 12A Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 Dated 26.2.2015 In F.No.Cit(E)/12A:80G/2014- 15/R-1188/4368/6070 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Exemption), New Delhi (For Short Hereinafter Called “Ld. Cit(E)”).

Section 12A

…is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We are left with no option but to hold that the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. 3. We find support from the decision in Commissioner of Income-tax vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.: 38 ITD 320(Del) wherein there was no representation for the appellant in the appeal filed by the revenue before the Tribunal, on the date of hearing, nor any communication for adjournment was received as to why the appellant had chosen to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent powers, treated the appeal filed by the revenue as unad…