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 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 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.

Gayathri Gopal Reddy, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(3)(2), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed by quashing the rectification order passed by the ld

ITA 329/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore18 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri S.V. Ravishankar, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel for Department

Section 143(3)Section 154

…e Court in the case of CIT v. B N Page 3 of 7 Bhattacharjee, 10 CTR 354, Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar v. CWT, 223 ITR 480 and the decision of the Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITR 320, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. Accordingly the appellate order was passed on 29.1.2025. 5. The assessee, aggrieved with the appellate order, preferred appeal before us and filed a paperbook containing 40 pages. 6. The ld. AR first of all submitted that on merits of the case, assessee has a very strong case that 154…

Jitendra Kumar Soni, Jabalpur vs. ACIT Central Circle, Jabalpur

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

ITA 112/JAB/2025[2019-20]Status: DisposedITAT Jabalpur11 Jun 2025AY 2019-20

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat & Shri, Nikhil Choudharyassessment Year: 2019-20 Jitendra Kumar Soni Acit-Central Circle V. 1, Silondi, Sihora, Jabalpur, 291 Ramnath Building, Madhya Pradesh-482002. Napier Town, Jabalpur. Pan:Cmbps6039Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent By: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 23 05 2025 Date Of Pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri Sapan Usrethe, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR)

Section 129Section 148Section 151Section 48

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JABALPUR BENCH “DB”, JABALPUR BEFORE SHRI KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI, NIKHIL CHOUDHARY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2019-20 Jitendra Kumar Soni ACIT-Central Circle v. 1, Silondi, Sihora, Jabalpur, 291 Ramnath Building, Madhya Pradesh-482002. Napier Town, Jabalpur. PAN:CMBPS6039Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by: Shri Sapan Usrethe, Adv Respondent by: Shri Shravan Kumar Meena, CIT(DR) Date of hearing: 23 05 2025 Date of pronouncement: 11 06 2025 O R D E R PER KUL BHARAT, VICE PRESIDENT.: This appeal, filed by the assessee, against the impugned order dated…

Dashrathbhai Madhubhai Jadav, Ahmedabad vs. ITO, Ward-3(3)(1), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 653/AHD/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad10 Jun 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri T.R. Senthil Kumar & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं /Ita No. 653/Ahd/2025 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2015-16 Dashrathbhai Madhubhai Jadav, The Income Tax Officer, At Post Khoraj Gam, बनाम/ Ward-3(3)(1), V/S. Taluka Sanand, Ahmedabad. Ahmedabad-380001. (Gujarat) "थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aotpj7754H अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Mehul Ranpura, Ar Revenue By : Shri R P Rastogi, Cit-Dr

For Appellant: Shri Mehul Ranpura, ARFor Respondent: Shri R P Rastogi, CIT-DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250

…s the Dashrathbhai M Jadav vs.ITO A.Y 2015-16 3 final hearing notice dated 04.10.2024 requiring submissions by 21.10.2024. The CIT(A) held that no documentary evidence had been furnished, and relying on decisions in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del)] and CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee [(1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC)], dismissed the appeal for want of prosecution. 4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us raising following grounds of appeal: 1. The ld. CIT(A) erred on facts as also in law in confirming addition made by the AO of Rs. 36,02,300/- on the alleged ground…

Ramakrishna Kirshor, Bengaluru vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-6(3)(1), Bangalore

The appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 87/BANG/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore09 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishiassessment Year : 2017-18

For Appellant: Shri C. Ramesh, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Ghale, Standing Counsel

Section 144

…O] was dismissed. The dismissal of the appeal was on account that assessee Page 2 of 6 was given several opportunities, but assessee did not make any submission and sought adjournment for 15 days. Therefore he applying the decision of the Coordinate Bench in 38 ITD 320 dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution. 2. The assessee is in appeal before us raising the following grounds of appeal:- “1. Learned CIT (A) was not dismissing the Appeal without giving sufficient opportunity to the Appellant for making submissions. 2. The Learned CIT (A) was not correct in not giving sufficient opportunity to…

Veer Project, Raipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Raipur

ITA 332/RPR/2025[2017-2018]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur05 Jun 2025AY 2017-2018

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 332/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Vikram Chhabda, C.AFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 127(3)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 68

…the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Hofkar 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 prosecuting its appeal. In view of continuous non-compliance by the appellant, the appeal is disposed ex- parte based on merits of the case. 5 Veer Project vs. ACIT-1(1), Raipur 5.1 Decision: I have carefully considered the relevant and material facts on record, in respec…

Lokesh Sachdeva, Delhi vs. DCIT, Central Circle-29, Delhi

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

ITA 5740/DEL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) in his order has observed as under;

Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 270ASection 274

…sentation. The record reflects a clear pattern of non- 5 cooperation, with the appellant continuously deferring submission on grounds of preparing documents without any substantial progress. In cases of non-compliance, as held by CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320) and Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker v. CWT (223 ITR 480), appeals can be adjudicated based on available records when the appellant shows a lack of diligence. 6.3 Based on the available facts, it is evident that the appellant has not substantiated their claims of procedural unfairness or demonstrated any conditions that would qualify them for im…

Designer Stone Impex, Hyderabad vs. ITO, Ward-6(1), Hyderabad

ITA 1272/HYD/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad03 Jun 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us :

For Appellant: Shri A. Srinivas, C.AFor Respondent: Shri Gurpreet Singh

Section 133(6)Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 69A

…steps Considering the conduct of the assessee in the present circumstance, I am of the view that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. This view has been affirmed by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT VS Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del) wherein the ITAT had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances. the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. 5 5. In the result the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 5. The assessee firm, being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), has carried the matter in appeal before us.…

Ram Jeevan Soni, Jodhpur vs. ITO, Ward-3(1), Jodhpur

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes pronounced under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal)

ITA 799/JODH/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Jodhpur02 Jun 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: DR MITHA LAL MEENA (Accountant Member), DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: Shri Rajendra Sisodia, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Karni Dan, Addl. CIT-DR

Section 250(6)

…ch the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with the issue of prosecution of appeal has stated that: "Preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it". 4.2 The Delhi Tribunal in CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) when faced with a similar situation of non-prosecution of appeal, dismissed the appeal of revenue. 4.3 Reliance is also placed in the case of Vipul Logistic & Warehousing (P) Ltd Vs. ITO, wherein the Hon'ble Delhi ITAT has confirmed even the order of CIT(A) who dismissed the appeal of the taxpayer when there was no response to the notices…

Sandeep Kaur Gill, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 3 (1), Raipur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 237/RPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur21 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 237/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15)

For Appellant: Shri Hardik Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 271Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 237/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2014-15) Sandeep Kaur Gill, v Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(1), 26/102, Shukla Colony Ravi Shankar s Raipur, C.G. Shukla Ward, Raipur-492001, C.G. PAN: ADCPG7812K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Hardik Jain, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR सुनव…

Sri. Vikram Shetty, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(3)(1), Bangalore

In the result, all the grounds of appeal are restored back to the ld

ITA 2170/BANG/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore20 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Prashant Maharishi & Shri Soundararajan K.Assessment Year: 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Deepak Bhat, CAFor Respondent: Shri Ganesh R. Gale, Standing Counsel

Section 144Section 54Section 90

…6 against the assessment order dated 30.3.2016 passed u/s. 144 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [the Act] Page 2 of 19 determining total income at Rs.44,35,107 was dismissed applying the decision of the coordinate Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 2. The assessee is aggrieved with the same and has preferred this appeal, raising twenty grounds of appeal as under: - “The Appellant humbly submits that: 1. The learned Assessing Officer has erred in passing the above said Order that is had in law conflicting the principles of natural justice and is liable to be quashed. 2. The learned Commissi…

Spin Packaging Ltd., Bilaspur vs. Deputy/Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax-2(1), Bilaspur

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes, in terms of over aforesaid observations

ITA 165/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 165/Rpr/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18)

For Appellant: Shri Bikram Jain, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, रायपुर "ायपीठ, रायपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RAIPUR BENCH, RAIPUR "ी पाथ" सारथी चौधर", "ाियक सद" एवं "ी अ"ण खोड़िपया, लेखा सद" के सम" । BEFORE SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM & SHRI ARUN KHODPIA, AM आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No: 165/RPR/2025 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2017-18) Spin Packaging Ltd., v Deputy/ Assistant Commissioner of Agrawal Bhawan Vidya Nagar, s Income Tax-1(1), Bilaspur, C.G. Bilaspur, 495 001, C.G. PAN : AACCS3713K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) . (""थ" / Respondent) . िनधा"रती की ओर से /Assessee by : Shri Bikram Jain, CA राज" की ओर से /Revenue by : Dr. Priyanka Patel,…

Asif Ali, Nawagarh Ambikapur vs. ITO Ward 1 Ambikapur, Kharasiya Road Ambikapur

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

ITA 159/RPR/2025[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur07 May 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury & Shri Arun Khodpiaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.159/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2013-14 Asif Ali Nawagarh Ambikapur, Surguja (C.G)-497 001 Pan: Aoypa3486J ........अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Ms. Richa Khatri, CAFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 5

…'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in the case of Amitkumar H. Shah Vs ACIT in 5 Asif Ali Vs. ITO, Ward-1, Ambikapur ITA No.2985/Ahd/2010 v.de 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. 7.3. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed and accordingly dismissed.” 5. The Ld. Sr. DR has fairly conceded that the matters may be adjudicated denovo on merits before the first appellate authority providing one…

Vinod Kumar Dhanja, Ajmer vs. Income Tax Officer, Ajmer

In the result, the appeal of the assesee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated hereinabove

ITA 342/JPR/2025[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur06 May 2025AY 2012-2013

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

For Appellant: Shri Sanjeev Jain C.AFor Respondent: Sh. Gautam Singh Choudhary, JCIT-DR

…entation on the appointed date. Mere filling of an appeal is not enough; effective prosecution is also required. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. This view is supported by the following judicial pronouncements: (i) CIT vs Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320(Del) (ii) Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3 SHRI VINOD KUMAR DHANJA VS ITO, WARD 2(1), AJMER (iii) New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) (iv) CIT vs. B. N. Bhatachargee and Another 118 ITR 461 (SC) 3.2 The Hon'ble ITAT, Jabalpur Bench, Jabalpur in the case of M/s Bindra Warehousing Corporation, Itarsi vs…

Roshan Lal, Alwar vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhiwadi

Appeal of the assessee is allowed for

ITA 50/JPR/2025[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur05 May 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: The Hon'Ble Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Jaipur.

For Appellant: Sh. Prateek BasotiaFor Respondent: Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 151(1)Section 69A

…आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण] जयपुर न्यायपीठ] जयपुर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, JAIPUR BENCHES,”B” JAIPUR Mk0 ,l- lhrky{eh] U;kf;d lnL; ,oa Jh jkBksM deys'k t;UrHkkbZ] ys[kk lnL; ds le{k BEFORE: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 50/JP/2025 fu/kZkj.k o"kZ@Assessment Year : 2014-15 cuke Roshan Lal Income Tax Officer, Vs. Huseengpur, Ward- Bhiwadi Alwar LFkk;h ys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: BKRPL 1627 G vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksj ls@ Assessee by : Sh. Prateek Basotia jktLo dh vksj ls@ Revenue by : Sh. Anoop Singh, Addl. CIT lquok…

B.N. Exports, Mumbai vs. Addl CIT RG 20(1), Mumbai

In the result, the appeal is accordingly partly allowed for statistical purposes in the above terms

ITA 1123/MUM/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai01 May 2025AY 2006-07

Bench: Ms. Padmavathy S & Shri Raj Kumar Chauhanm/S B. N. Exports Vs. Acit Range 20(1), Nightingale Chs, Bldg No. 2, Flat Piramal Chambers, Parel, No. 201, Second Floor, Hindustan Mumbai. Naka, Charkop Rd, Kandivali (W), Mumbai-400 067 Pan: Aaafb1156E (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 250

…sessee vide order dated 18.08.2011 by observing as under:- 3. Considering the facts narrated above and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as considered by the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) P. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and by Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar 223 ITR 480 (M.P.), this appeal of the assessee is treated as unadmitted and dismissed for non prosecution. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move the Tribunal explaining the reasons for non compliance and for recalling of this order and if the Bench i…

Dipanshu Gupta, Howwrah vs. ITO, Ward - 37(1), Kolkata

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed

ITA 2449/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Sri Pradip Kumar Choubey & Sri Rakesh Mishra

Section 147Section 250

…peal and the appeal was dismissed. Reliance was placed upon the decisions in the case of CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Another 118 ITR 461 (relevant pages 477 and 478), Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holker Vs. CWT 223 IR 480 (MP), CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). The Ld. AR who appeared before the Bench submitted that the orders before the Ld. AO as well as the Ld. CIT(A) were made ex parte and requested that the matter may be set aside and the assessee may be granted another opportunity to make proper representation before the Ld. AO. The Ld. Sr. DR supported the order of the Ld. CIT(A) but raised…

Jayanthi Rajagounder, Chennai vs. ITO, Ncw-19(4), Chennai

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

ITA 3146/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai17 Apr 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri George George K, Hon’Ble & Shri S.R. Raghunatha, Hon’Bleआयकर अपीलसं./Ita Nos.: 3146/Chny/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Smt. Jayanthi Rajagounder, The Income Tax Officer, No.F-1, First Floor, V. Non-Corporate Ward 19(4), Seenivasam Flat No.9, Chennai - 34. Durairaj Street, Palavanthangal, Chennai – 600 061. [Pan:Ahspj 9904F] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" की ओर से/Appellant By : Shri K.B. Muralidharan, Ca ""थ" की ओर से/Respondent By : Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 26.02.2025 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 17.04.2025 आदेश /O R D E R

For Appellant: Shri K.B. Muralidharan, CAFor Respondent: Ms. Gouthami Manivasagam, JCIT

Section 115BSection 69A

…re. This 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.” Aggrieved by the impugned order of the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee preferred an appeal before us. 4. The Ld.AR for the assessee submitted that the assessee was carrying on business of facilitating electronic payments like online :-8-: ITA. No:3146/Chny/2024 payment…

Avinash Awhad Legal Heir of Eknath Shivram, Mumbai vs. Income Tax Officer 28(1)(1), Mumbai

ITA 1063/MUM/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai17 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Narender Kumar Choudhry (Jm) & Shri Omkareshwar Chidara (Am) Avinash Awhad (Legal Heir Of Ito Ward 28(1)(4) Eknath Awhad) Vashi Railway 102/Kukreja Crystal, Plot No. Vs. Station Building 79A, Sector 14, Koparkhairane Vashi, Navi Mumbai Navi Mumbai- 400 709 400709. Pan : Agapa3822C Appellant Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Manoj Kumar SinhaFor Respondent: Shri Shalin S. Divatia

Section 148Section 69A

…e by the appellant in his bank account. 3. From the order of Ld. CIT(A), it is observed that five notices were sent to the appellant to explain his case and there is no response to the notices. Hence, Ld. CIT(A) relied on the decision of Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and dismissed the appeal of the appellant. Apart from this, the Ld. CIT(A) has dismissed the case on merits too by stating that the appellant did not explain the sources of cash deposits of Rs. 16 lakhs in his savings bank account. The appellant did not even file a Return of Income in pursuance of notice issued by the department under sectio…

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 55/VIZ/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A

…teps. Considering the conduct of the assessee in the present circumstance, I am of the view that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. This view has been affirmed by the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT VS Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del) wherein the ITAT had dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the present appeal of the appellant is hereby dismissed. 5. In the result, the appeal of the appellant is dismissed.” 6. Assessee, being aggrieved with the order of CIT(A), carried the matter in appeal before us. 7. Shri C. S…

Ravi Prasad Boyapati, Krishna District vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(3), Vijayawada

In the result, both the captioned appeals are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 54/VIZ/2025[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Visakhapatnam15 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Us:

For Appellant: Shri C. Subrahmanyam, CA

Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 250Section 250(6)Section 69A