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 367,735 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.

Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 3563/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: FixedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. Bhavnesh Saini & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 Prometric Testing Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 2Nd Floor, Dlf Infinity, Tower-A, Circle-2, Gurgaon Sector-25, Dlf Phase-Ii, Dlf City, Gurgaon Pan :Aaccp5202A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. Sanjay Kumar Yadav, Sr.Dr

…assessee is not interested in prosecution of 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. 2 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: "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…

M/S. Globus Builders Pvt. Ltd. (Merged), New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed

ITA 3131/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jun 2018AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavaassessment Year: 2006-07

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

…sion 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); and 2. Late Tukoji Rao Holkar vs CWT (1996) 223 ITR 480 (MP) 3. In the result, the assessee’s appeal stands dismissed. Order pronounced in the Open Court on 19th June, 2018. (N.K. BILLAIYA) JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 19th JUNE, 2018 ‘GS’…

M/S Shri Balaji Metals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-5, Kolkata

Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 86/KOL/2017[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2011-12

Section 143(3)

…nt it an RPAD notice dated 25.04.2018. The same has been received back unserved. We thus proceed ex parte against the appellant assessee in the instant case. We quote hon'ble Delhi high court’s decision(s) in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (I) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), Estate of ITA No.86/Kol/2017 A.Y. 2011-12 M/s Shri Balaji Metals & Minerals Pvt. Ltd. Vs. DCIT, Cir-5, Kol. Page 2 Late Tukjirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480(MP), New Diwaan Oil Mills vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & another 296 ITR 495 (SC) that a litigant has not only to file an appeal but has to prosecute the same diligently. 3. This appeal is di…

Marigold Niketan Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-9(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 249/KOL/2017[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata13 Jun 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Godara & Shri, M. Balaganeshassessment Year :2009-10 Marigold Niketan Pvt. V/S. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.,Amit Jain, M/S M. Ward-9(1) Jain & Associates 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block- E, 4Th Floor, Room No.15A, Kolkata-001 [Pan No.Aafcm 4272 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. Cit-Dr ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement आदेश /O R D E R Per S.S.Godara:- This Assessee’S Appeal For Assessment Year 2009-10 Arises Against The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Kolkata’S Order Dated 15.11.2016, In Proceedings U/S 143(3) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Filed By The Assessee In Spite Of Issue Of Notice By Rpad. It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Serious 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 8.N.Bhattacharjee & 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."

Section 143(3)

…आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL KOLKATA BENCH “D” KOLKATA Before Shri S.S.Godara, Judicial Member and Shri, M. Balaganesh, Accountant Member Assessment Year :2009-10 Marigold Niketan Pvt. V/s. Income Tax Officer, Ltd.,Amit Jain, M/s M. Ward-9(1) Jain & Associates 9/12, Lal Bazar Street, Block- E, 4th Floor, Room No.15A, Kolkata-001 [PAN No.AAFCM 4272 L] .. अपीलाथ" /Appellant ""यथ"/Respondent None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/By Appellant Shri Sanjay Mukherjee, Addl. CIT-DR ""यथ" क" ओर से/By Respondent 11-06-2018 सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing 13-06-2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date of…

Lilu Ram, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Ward- 2(5), Gurgaon

ITA 160/DEL/2018[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi13 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.R.Mishra, Sr. D.R

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts 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), I treat this appeal as unadmitted. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been held as under: “if the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation…

Girish Kumar Chhabra, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 535/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi12 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] Shri Girish Kumar Chhabra Vs. The I.T.O 2125, Tilak Bazar Ward 29(1) Delhi New Delhi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta 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. 535/DEL/2015 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 12.06.2018. [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 12th June, 2018 VL/ 3…

M/S. Hbn Entertainment & Broadcasting Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1324/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava[Assessment Year: 2010-11] M/S Hbn Entertainment & Vs. The A. C.I.T Broadcasting P. Ltd Central Circle 4 B – 53, B-I, Community Centre, New Delhi Janakpuri, New Delhi Pan : Aaach 2486 A [Appellant] [Respondent] Date Of Hearing : 11.06.2018 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.06.2018

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanjit Singh, CIT- 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. 1324/DEL/2015 is dismissed. The order is pronounced in the open court on 11.06.2018. /- sd/- [SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA] [N.K. BILLAIYA] JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 11th June, 2018 VL/ 3…

Better Mercantile Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1354/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Better Mercantile Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Ito, Ward-7(3), Kolkata Aayakar Bhawan, 23/1, Principal Khudiram Bose Road P-7,Chowringhee Square, Kolkata – 700006. Kolkata-700069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaics 6024 M .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.Das, Addl.CIT

…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…

Mr Madan Mohan Mandal, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-42/43, Kolkata

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

ITA 1143/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

…This principle is embodied in the well known dictum – “vigilantibus, non dormientibus, jura subvenient”. Considering the facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules as was considered in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Halkar vs C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non-prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 7th June…

Arjun Lal Khanchandani, New Delhi vs. Pr. CIT, New Delhi

ITA 2951/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2010-11 Sh. Arjun Lal Khanchandani, Vs. Pr. Cit, 67/4, Madras House, Daryaganj, Delhi -18, New Delhi New Delhi Pan :Aanpk4318G (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Smt. Rachna Singh, Cit(Dr)

Section 263

…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…

M/S. Anjal Garments, Noida vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1954/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri N.K. Choudhry[Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/S Anjal Garments Vs. The A.C.I.T A-98, Sector 5 Circle 36(1) Noida New Delhi Pan : Aaffa 1738 G [Appellant] [Respondent]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR
Section 253Section 282

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, DELHI ‘A’ BENCH, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI N.K. BILLAIYA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, AND SHRI N.K. CHOUDHRY, JUDICIAL MEMBER [Assessment Year: 2007-08] M/s Anjal Garments Vs. The A.C.I.T A-98, Sector 5 Circle 36(1) Noida New Delhi PAN : AAFFA 1738 G [Appellant] [Respondent] Date of Hearing : 07.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 07.06.2018 Assessee by : None Revenue by : Shri Ravi Kant Gupta, Sr. DR ORDER PER N.K. BILLAIYA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER, This appeal by the assessee is preferred against the order of the CIT(A) -19, New Delhi dated 18.12.2014 pertaining to A.Y 2007-08. 2. Tod…

Admark Polycoats Pvt. Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3395/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: 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.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
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 A…

Amman Apollo India Pvt. Ltd., (Previously Known As Apollo Construction Equipment Ltd.), Ahmedabad vs. The Dy.CIT, Mehsana Circle, Mehsana

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3339/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad06 Jun 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: 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.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr. D.R
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 A…

M/S C & R Leather Fashion Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. JCIT, Range-II, Kolkata

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

ITA 2339/KOL/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am M/S C & R Leather Fashion (P) Ltd., Vs. J.C.I.T., Range-Ii, Kolkata 29A/4A, G.J.Khan Road, Kolkata-700039. P-7, Chowringhee Square, Aayakar Bhawan, Kolkata- 700069. "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcc 3055 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Tauheed, Addl. CIT

…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…

M/S Jai Baba Investment Consultants (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-6(2), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1216/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Jun 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

…1 M/s. Jai Baba Investment Consultants (P) Ltd., AY- 2011-12 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “A” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी पी. एम.जगताप, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी ए. ट". वक", "या"यक सद"य) [Before Shri P.M. Jagtap, AM & Shri A. T. Varkey, JM] I.T.A. No. 1216/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2011-12 M/s. Jai Baba Investment Consultants Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-6(2), Kolkata (P) Ltd. (PAN: AACCJ4983G) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 06.06.2018 Date of Pronouncement 06.06.2018 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM T…

Shri Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4) Now Ward-2(2)(4), Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 700/AHD/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…of CIT vs. B.N.Bhattachargee & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Surat/I.T.A. No.700, 3093 & 3094/A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 Page 3 of 10 (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). Therefore, the assessee could not submit additional evidence before the CIT(A), as no opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee. It is also a fact that assessment was made u/s.144 of the Act as the assessee could not submit the relevant evidences during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, citing the decision of Hon…

Rajeevkumar Hariprasad Tulsiyan, Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Surat

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for the assessment year

ITA 3093/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Surat05 Jun 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri C.M.Garg & Shri O.P.Meenas V. आ.अ.सं./I. िनधा" अपीलाथ" Appellant ""थ"/Res . T.A No. Pondent रण N वष"/A O Y: 1 700/Ahd/2 2007- Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan, V. The 016/Srt 08 Prop. Of Nidhi Textile, Income R-206, Rohit A/C Market, Tax Ring Road, Surat–395002. Officer, Ward-5(4), Pan: Abxpk 3288J Surat. 2 3093/Ahd/ 2008- Rajeev Kumar Hariprasad V. The & 2014/Srt 09 Tulsiyan, Income 3 Shop No.1012, Rohit A.C. Tax & & Market, Ring Road, Surat – Officer, 395 001. Ward-5(4), 3094/Ahd/ 2009- Surat. 2014/Srt 10 Pan: Abxpk 3288J

Section 143(3)Section 144Section 147

…of CIT vs. B.N.Bhattachargee & Ors. 118 ITR 461 and Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Rajeev Kumar Tulsiyan vs. ITO, Ward-5(4), Surat/I.T.A. No.700, 3093 & 3094/A.Y.2007-08 to 2009-10 Page 3 of 10 (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). Therefore, the assessee could not submit additional evidence before the CIT(A), as no opportunity of being heard was allowed to the assessee. It is also a fact that assessment was made u/s.144 of the Act as the assessee could not submit the relevant evidences during the course of assessment proceedings. Therefore, citing the decision of Hon…

Ashoke Kumar Bhadra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

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

ITA 1270/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2018AY 2012-13

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

…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…

Ashoke Kumar Bhadra, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-49, Kolkata

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

ITA 1269/KOL/2017[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.S.Tauheed, Addl. CIT,Sr.DR

…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…

Jitender Kumar Prop., Karnal vs. ITO, Karnal

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2102/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jun 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri L.P. Sahu

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

…erefore, the appeal of assessee is 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 appea…