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 367,518 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.

Smt. Anu Maudgil, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2377/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Nov 2018AY 2008-09

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…

Shri. Dilip Girdhar, Bangalore vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward 6(1)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Years 2015-

ITA 2559/BANG/2018[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore27 Nov 2018AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Renugadevi, 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 Years 2015- 16 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 27th Nov., 2018. (JASON P BOAZ) Accountant Member Bangalore, Dt. 27.11.2018. *Reddy gp 3 Copy to : 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. C.I.T. 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore. 6. Guard File.…

M/S. Mahabir Proteinex Ltd., Karnal vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3835/DEL/2015[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Shridhar Doab, Sr.D.R

…my considered opinion, the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. We, therefore, hold that this appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard, we 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, we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal o…

Pramesh H. Aurora, Pune vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward - 2(2), Pune

In the result, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee

ITA 155/PUN/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune26 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Vikas Awasthy, Jm

For Appellant: Shri Abhay AvchatFor Respondent: Shri M.K. Verma

…perusal of the impugned order shows that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has dismissed the appeal of assessee for non prosecution by following the order of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported as 38 ITD 320 (Del.). It is a well settled position that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has no power to dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is duty-bound to decide the appeal on merits. Accordingly, the impugned order is set aside and appeal of the assessee is restored back to the file of Commissioner…

Collate Barter Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1948/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am Collate Barter Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-9(3), Kolkata

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R. Shyam, CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. VISWANETHRA RAVI, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM Collate Barter Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-9(3), Kolkata 4B Nalini Seth Road, Kolkata – 700 007. 54/1, Rafi Ahmed Kidwai Road, 5th Floor, Kolkata – 700 016. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AAECC 7559 H (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri R. Shyam, CIT(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 12/11/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 22/11/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining…

Jayanti Gupta, Dehradun vs. ITO, Ward- 1(4), Dehradun

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

ITA 4576/DEL/2018[2013-14]Status: HeardITAT Delhi22 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…sessee is not interested in prosecution of her Appeal. ITA Nos. 4576/D/2018 2 A.Y. 2013-14 Jayanti Gupta 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 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 purpos…

Nogle Technologies Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 18(4), New Delhi

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

ITA 4552/DEL/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…s. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of her Appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 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 purpos…

Commy Commercial Co., Faridabad vs. ITO, Ward- 1(2), Faridabad

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

ITA 4540/DEL/2018[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…is not interested in prosecution of his Appeal. ITA Nos. 4540/D/2018 2 A.Y. 2010-11 Commy Commercial Co. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 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 purpos…

Tribhawan Kumar Parnami, Gurgaon vs. Addl. CIT, Range- 4, Gurgaon

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

ITA 4533/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu

…not interested in prosecution of his Appeal. ITA Nos. 4533/D/2018 2 A.Y. 2009-10 Tribhawan Kumar Parnami 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of the 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 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 purpos…

Smt.Shobha Lakshman, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-7(2)(4), Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 228/BANG/2018[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore19 Nov 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri. A. K. Garodia & Shri. Laliet Kumari.T.A No.228/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Smt. Shobha Lakshman, No.A-204, Temple Meadow Apartments, 27Th Cross, Kaigarika Layout, Kaveri Nagar, Bsk 2Nd Stage, Bengaluru 560 070 .. Appellant Pan : Abupl5146K V. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 7 (2)(4), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. Cit Heard On : 19.11.2018 Pronounced On : 19.11.2018 O R D E R Per Laliet Kumar:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT

…ITA.228/Bang/2018 Page - 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL BENGALURU BENCH 'B', BENGALURU BEFORE SHRI. A. K. GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI. LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A No.228/Bang/2018 (Assessment Year : 2013-14) Smt. Shobha Lakshman, No.A-204, Temple Meadow Apartments, 27th Cross, Kaigarika Layout, Kaveri Nagar, BSK 2nd Stage, Bengaluru 560 070 .. Appellant PAN : ABUPL5146K v. Income-tax Officer, Ward – 7 (2)(4), Bengaluru .. Respondent Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri. R. N. Siddappaji, Addl. CIT Heard on : 19.11.2018 Pronounced on : 19.11.2018 O R D E R PER LALIET KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBE…

M/S. Unicon Financial Intermediaries Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3198/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri O.P. Kant & Shri K. Narasimha Charyi.T.A. No.3198/Del/2015 Assessment Year: 2010-11 Unicon Financial Intermediaries P.Ltd., Vs Dcit, Circle 18(1), 27, First Floor , Babar Lane, New Delhi. Bemgali Market, New Delhi. (Pan: Aaacu6952E) South Extension, Part-I, New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: None Respondent By: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Order Date Of Hearing: 19.11.2018 Date Of Pronouncement: 19.11.2018 Per K. Narasimha Chary, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 27.02.2015 In Appeal No.228/2013-14 To 17/2014-15 Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income- Tax (Appeals)-17, New Delhi. (For Short Hereinafter Called “Ld. Cita”). 2. When The Matter Is Called Today For Hearing, There Is No Representation On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Notice Sent To The Assessee By Registered Post To The Address Furnished In Form No 36. When The Notice Is Sent To Proper Address Of The Assessee As Provided By Them In Form No. 36 Through Registered Mail With Postage Prepaid, If The Assessee Was To Be Found Therein, The Notice Would Have Been Served. If For Any Reason The Assessee Is Absent Temporarily, It Is For The Assessee To Make

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…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…

Subrata Mukherjee, Hooghly vs. ITO, Ward - 2(2), Hooghly

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

ITA 1534/KOL/2018[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata16 Nov 2018AY 2005-06

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, Am] I.T.A No. 1534/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Subrata Mukherjee . –Vs- Ito, Ward-2(2), Hooghly [Pan: Agxpm 6680 R] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy, AM] I.T.A No. 1534/Kol/2018 Assessment Year : 2005-06 Subrata Mukherjee . –vs- ITO, Ward-2(2), Hooghly [PAN: AGXPM 6680 R] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Revenue : Shri Saurabh Kumar, Addl. CIT Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 30.10.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 16.11.2018 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-6, Kolkata, (hereinafter the ‘ld. CIT (A)’), dt. 25.04.2018, passed u/s 143(3) of the Income Tax Act,…

Shri Pavani Parameshwara Rao, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 425/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri O.P. Kantasstt. Year: 2012-13

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH “B”: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.K. YADAV, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI O.P. KANT, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Asstt. Year: 2012-13 Pavani Parameshwara Rao, ACIT Sr. Advocate, 82, Lawyers Circle-61(1) Chamber, New Delhi. Supreme Court of India, Vs. Tilak Marg, New Delhi PAN AACPR8466P (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by: None Department by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 15/11/2018 Date of 15/11/2018 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)-20, New Delhi vide order dated 02.11.2015 pertaining t…

Smt Veerala Padmaja, Secunderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-10(1), Hyderabad

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

ITA 964/HYD/2018[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad14 Nov 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2014-15 Smt. Veerala Padmaja, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Secunderabad. Ward – 10(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Bskpp 3246C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri S. Rama RaoFor Respondent: Shri Nilanjan Dey
Section 143(2)Section 144

…essee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A), however, did not appear before the CIT(A) to substantiate her claim. The CIT(A), dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution applying the decision of ITAT, Delhi in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal: “1) The order of the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is erroneous both on facts and in law. 2) The learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) erred in deciding the appeal without providing proper opportunity to the appe…

M/S. Agr Automobiles Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 2342/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am M/S. Agr Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-4(3), Kolkata 3A, Garstin Place, 1St Floor, Kol-1. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ayakar Bhawan, 8Th Floor, Kol- 69. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcb 0537 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri K. Mondal, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 27/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 14/11/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2012-2013, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-13, Kolkata Dated 31.07.2017. 2. Notice Of Hearing Of This Appeal Was Sent To The Assessee At The Address Given By The Assessee In Form No.36. The Said Notice Has Not Been Returned Unserved. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 27.09.2018. Today I.E. On 27.09.2018 When The Case Was Called For Hearing, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Request For Adjournment Was Made. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested 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.Bhattachrgee & 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.” (2). In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs Cwt; 223 Itr 480 (Mp) While Dismissing The Reference Made At The Instance Of The Assessee In Default Made Following Observation In Their Order :

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM M/s. AGR Automobiles Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-4(3), Kolkata 3A, Garstin Place, 1st Floor, Kol-1. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Ayakar Bhawan, 8th Floor, Kol- 69. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCB 0537 F (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri K. Mondal, Sr. DR सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 27/09/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 14/11/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to asses…

M/S. Aryan Corporate Solutions (P) Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, Noida

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

ITA 6002/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi14 Nov 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla & Shri Anadee Nath Misshra

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Katoch, 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…

Smt. Tripti Rajeev Goel, Bharuch vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-4, Bharuch

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 308/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat13 Nov 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Amarjit Singhअपील सं./Ita No.308/Ahd/2015 "नधा"रण वष"/Asstt. Year:2010-2011 Tripti Rajeev Goel, Income Tax Officer, 3045, Gidc, Ward-4, Vs. Panoli, Bharuch Bharuch. Pan: Aelpg7556A

For Appellant: None
Section 143(3)

…t the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka vs. CWT: 223 ITR480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, it would be at liberty if so advised to pray for a recall of this order. 4. In the result, the appeal of the as…

Praveen Khandelwal, New Delhi vs. ACIT, Circle- 20(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA No

ITA 2639/DEL/2018[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya[Assessment Year: 2012-13] Shri Praveen Khandelwal Vs. The A.C.I.T. 130, Sharda Niketan Circle 20(1) Pitampura, New Delhi. New Delhi Pan: Ahzpk 1936 B [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Aashna Paul, Sr. DR

…sion 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 filed by the assessee in ITA No. 2639/DEL/2018 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 13 .11.2018. [N.K. BILLAIYA] ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 13th November, 2018 VL/ 3…

Rolls-Royas India Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, International Taxation, New Delhi

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

ITA 6189/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Nov 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y.: 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SHRI H.K. CHOUDHARY, CIT(DR)

…w of Page 1 of 3 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 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…

Ahmad Tariq Jameel, Aligarh vs. DCIT, ( International Taxation), Circle, Noida

In the result appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2704/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Nov 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla(Ita No. 2704/Del/2018) Assessment Year: 2009-10 Ahmad Tariq Jameel, Vs. Dcit (International C/O Deepak Singh, Advocate, Taxation),Circle 2, Court Of Wards Noida Pan Abapa7581P Compound, Aligarh, Uttar Pradesh - 202001 Tan/Pan: Aaacr 3007K (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…at the assessee is not interested in the prosecution of appeal. 4. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then this order shall be recalled. 5. In…