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 367,561 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.

M/S. Thakkar Steel, Faridabad vs. Addl. CIT, Faridabad

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 3309/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: FixedITAT Delhi12 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2011-12] M/S Thakkar Steel Vs. The Addl.C.I.T. Plot No. 53/19, Industrial Area Range - Ii Faridabad Faridabad

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

…ion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee, placing reliance on the ratio of decisions in the following cases:- 1. CIT Vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del); 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 3309/DEL/2015 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2018. sd/- [KULDIP SINGH] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12th July, 2018 VL/…

Mayuri Restaurant and Bar, Hyderabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(4), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1763/HYD/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad11 Jul 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2013-14 M/S Mayuri Restaurant & Bar, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Hyderabad. Ward – 9(4), Hyderabad.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna

Section 131Section 143(2)Section 144

…estaurant and Bar, Hyd. prosecution as held by Hon’ble High court of Mumbai in the case of M/s Chemipol Vs. Union of India in Excise appeal No. 62 of 2009. Therefore, respectfully following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., (38 ITD 320) and Madhya Pradesh High Court in Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss this appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 3. Even on merits, it is observed that the assessee is a firm deriving income from business of Bar and Restaurant. It filed its Return of Income for A.Y.2013-14 on 27.09.2013 declaring total income of Rs.2,89,490/…

M/S. Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1328/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L. SAINI, AM ITA Nos.1327 & 1328/Kol/2017 (A.Ys: 2007-08 & 2008-09) M/s. Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Kolkata FE-83, Salt Lake City, Sector-III, P-7, Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700 106. Kolkata – 700 069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : AABCB 0441 L (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR) सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 10/07/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 11/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM:…

M/S. Bagaria Leasing Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1327/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L. Saini, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT(DR)

Alka Jain, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-42, Murshidabad

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

ITA 1148/KOL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Alka Jain Vs. Dcit, Circle-42, Murshidabad. Aurangabad, Murshidabad – 742201. Laldighi, 57, R.N. Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad – 742101. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Acfpj 9691 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant By : None Revenue By : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 11/07/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement: 11/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2011-12, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata Dated 22.02.2017. 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 11.07.2018. Today I.E. On 11.07.2018 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 A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI S.S. GODARA, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Alka Jain Vs. DCIT, Circle-42, Murshidabad. Aurangabad, Murshidabad – 742201. Laldighi, 57, R.N. Tagore Road, Berhampore, Murshidabad – 742101. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./PAN/GIR No. : ACFPJ 9691 K (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) .. Appellant by : None Revenue by : Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date of Hearing : 11/07/2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of Pronouncement: 11/07/2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. A. L. Saini, AM: The captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to assessment y…

Maharani Royal Developers P.Ltd, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward-16(1), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7004/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…te, no Power of Attorney has been executed in favour of any counsel. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, it can be safely presumed that assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Relying on the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) wherein it has been held that issuance of notice under Rule 19 by itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non- attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address etc. and ensure participation. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holk…

Ajit Singh, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Gurgaon

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

ITA 6982/DEL/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…moved. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances , I am of the opinion that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. The appeal, accordingly is dismissed. 2. Reliance is placed on the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) wherein it has been held that issuance of notice under Rule 19 by itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address etc. and participation. Similarly Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (…

Nitin Yadav, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ward- 44(4), New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6885/DEL/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…mained unaddressed till date. Accordingly in the peculiar facts and circumstances I have no alternative but to presume that the assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. 2. Reliance is placed on the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) wherein it has been held that issuance of notice under Rule 19 by itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non- attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address etc. and participation. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court also in the case of Estate of Late ITA-6885/Del/20…

Raj Kumar Singh, Noida vs. ITO, Noida

In the result, all the appeals are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 5477/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: : Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahuassessment Year: 2010-11 Raj Kumar Singh Prop. R.K. Singh & Co. Vs. Income-Tax Officer, D-4, Sector-31, Noida. Ward 1(3), New Delhi (Pan–Aadcm0847K) (Appellant) (Respondent)

…us. It, therefore, appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders 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). 2 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 resul…

Nsk Barings Manufacturing India Pvt Ltd (Formerly Known As Nsk-Abc Bearings Pvt Ltd), Sriperumbudur vs. ACIT, Corporate Circle 4(2), Chennai

In the result appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes as indicated herein above

ITA 268/CHNY/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai10 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A.Mohan Alankamonyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.268/Chny/2018 (िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2009-10) Vs The Acit, M/S. Nsk Bearings Manufacturing Corporate Circle 4(2), India Pvt. Ltd., (Formerly Known As Nsk-Abc Bearings Pvt. Ltd.,), Chennai. No.A2, Sipcot Oragadam Growth Centre, Mathur Village, Sriperumpudur Taluk, Tamilnadu – 602 105. Pan: Aaccn2689K (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCIT

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 32

…d its representative have not co-operated with the Ld.CIT(A) in pursuing their appeal. Therefore the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in- limini relying on the decision of the Tribunal in the case CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320. Now the assessee is in appeal before us requesting for remitting back the matter to the file of Ld.CIT(A) thereby providing one more opportunity to the assessee of being heard. We do not find any merit in the submission of the Ld.AR, because the assessee has grossly violated by not co-operating with the Ld.CIT(A) in the proceedings before him. Ho…

Beena Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for

ITA 2258/DEL/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ridhi Karan Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr. DR

…eep the issues alive in appeal. I therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee. on account of non appearance. My decision is also corroborated by the decision in the following cases. . CIT V. Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del) . Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Hoikar CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (MR) 5. Assessee’s appeal stands dismissed.” 5. After going through the aforesaid finding of the Ld. CIT(A), we are of the view that there is no doubt that assessee remained non-cooperative before the Revenue Authorities, but we are of the opinion that Ld. CIT(A) has passed the ex…

Beena Gutgutia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals filed by the Assessee stand allowed for

ITA 2257/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi10 Jul 2018AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahu

For Appellant: Sh. Ridhi Karan Aggarwal, CAFor Respondent: Sh. Vijay Kr. Jiwani, Sr. DR

Ashok Kumar, Bulandshahr vs. ITO, Ward- 3(1), Bulandshahr

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 45/DEL/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

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

…eal of assessee is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 3. In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that the appeal does not mean, mere filing of the memo of appeal…

Lepakshi Handicraft Emporium, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No

ITA 1593/DEL/2015[2011-12 (F.Y. 2010-11)]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Jul 2018

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Kuldip Singh[A.Y 2011-12] Lepakshi Handicraft Emporium Vs. The I.T.O B-6, State Emporium Complex Tds Ward – (50)3 Baba Kharak Singh Marg, New Delhi Connaught Place, New Delhi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amit Jain, Sr. DR

…ion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed. We, therefore, have no option but to dismiss the appeal preferred by the assessee, placing reliance on the ratio of decisions in the following cases:- 1. CIT Vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del); 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee in ITA No. 1593/DEL/2015 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12.07.2018. [KULDIP SINGH] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12th July, 2018 VL/ 3…

Raj Kumar, Meerut vs. ITO, Ward- 2(2), Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 7003/DEL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jul 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…as been executed by the assessee till date in favour of any counsel. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, it can be safely presumed that assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Relying on the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) wherein it has been held that issuance of notice under Rule 19 by itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address etc. and ensure participation. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka…

M/S Golden Investment Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. Pr. CIT, Kolkata-1, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: "ी जे. सुधाकर रे"डी, लेखा सद"य एवं/And "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य) [Before Shri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 263

…p a sleeping litigant. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. We, therefore, relying upon the decision of 2 Golden Investment Management Pvt. Ltd. AY 2008-09. ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), dismiss the appeal of the assessee for non-appearance. 3. We, further, make it clear that if the assessee is advised to move appropriate application to recall this order, then it is at liberty to do so for just cause and the Tribunal may decide in accordance to law. 4. In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced i…

Tushar Kanti Banerjee, Burdwan vs. ITO, WD-1(2)/Asn, Asansol

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

ITA 2093/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jul 2018AY 2008-09

For Appellant: Shri Tushar Kanti BanerjeeFor Respondent: The I.T.O, Ward 1(2)

…said notice returned to sender with the same endorsement. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. In view of the above, following the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of 1 Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 04-07-2018 P.M. Jagtap S.S.Viswanethra Rav…

Anita Kumari, Panipat vs. ITO, Ward- 1, Panipat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 6718/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…t by the Registry on 11.9.2017 till date, have remained unaddressed. In these peculiar facts and circumstances, it can be safely presumed that assessee may not be serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Relying on the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) wherein it has been held that issuance of notice under Rule 19 by itself does not make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance makes the appeal defective and the assessee has to correct the same by giving proper address etc. and ensure participation. Similarly the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holka…

Hind Airlink Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

Appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an

ITA 2633/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.K. Yadav & Shri B.R.R. Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kr. Yadav, Sr. DR

…erested in prosecution of the present appeal. 3. Keeping in view the legal position that mere filing of appeal 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. Order pronounced in the op…

Rayban Organics (P) Ltd., Faridabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2615/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jul 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Rayban Organics (P) Ltd., Vs. Jcit, C/O- M/S. Chordiya & Company, Range-2, Ghaziabad Cas, 826, Sector-15A, Faridabad Pan :Aaccr8032N (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Atiq Ahmed, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 03.07.2018 Date Of Pronouncement 03.07.2018 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against Order Of Cit(A), Muzaffarnagar, Dated 16.02.2015 Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2010- 11. 2. In This Case, Notice Was Sent To The Assessee By Rpad On 15.05.2018 At The Address Mentioned In Form No. 36, Fixing The Case For Hearing On 03.07.2018. In Spite Of This, On 03.07.2018 When The Case Was Called Upon, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee, Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Filed. It Is, Thus, Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecution Of His Appeal. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & 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:

…assessee is not interested in prosecution of his 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…