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 367,154 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.

Mayuri Infrastructure Private Limited, Nashik vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 2538/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: HeardITAT Pune09 Apr 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Pramod S ShingteFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 143(2)Section 40A(3)

…, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of pursuing of appeal has stated that "preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it". The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi, in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), when faced with a similar situation of non- pursuing of appeal dismissed the appeal of Revenue. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the following maxim- "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt". In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant is not in…

Priya Prasad Shirodkar, Calangute vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 2(1), Panaji

ITA 53/PAN/2025[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Panaji08 Apr 2025AY 2020-21

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliita Nos. 053/Pan/2025 Assessment Year : 2020-21 Priya Prasad Shirodkar H.No. 4/96, Prabhuwaddo, Calangute, Goa Pan : Akipg9924D . . . . . . . Appellant V/S Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Panaji, Goa. . . . . . . . Respondent Appearances Assessee By : None For The Assessee Revenue By : Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. Dr’] सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 07/04/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 08/04/2025 Order Per G. D. Padmahshali; The Captioned Appeal Of The Assessee Impugns Din & Order 1065516948(1) Dt. 10/06/2024 Passed By The National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfac’ Hereinafter] U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [‘The Act’ Hereinafter] Which In Turn Arisen Out Of Order Of Assessment Dt. 26/09/2022 Passed U/S 143(3) Of The Act By The National Faceless E-Asstt. Centre, Delhi [‘Ld. Nfeac’ Hereinafter] Anent To Assessment Year 2020-21 [‘Ay’ Hereinafter].

For Appellant: None for the AssesseeFor Respondent: Mr Narendra Reddy [‘Ld. DR’]

Section 143(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251(1)(a)Section 251(2)Section 253(3)

…g the issues/ground raised in Form No. 35. While doing so, the Ld. NFAC placed its reliance on ‘CIT Vs B N Bhattacharya’ [1977, 118 ITR 461 (SC)], ‘Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs CWT’ [1997, 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and ‘CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd.’ [1991, 38 ITD 320 (Del)]. We note that, while dealing with the appeal for passing an order u/s 250(6) of the Act, the Ld. NFAC in view of prescription of Section 251(1)(a) and (b) and Explanation to Section 251(2) of the Act was required to apply his mind to all the issues which arise from the impugned order before him whether or not the same has been raised in for…

Kuldeep Kaur, Vill-Deshu Majra, Mohali vs. Income Tax Officer, Mohali

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

ITA 5/CHANDI/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh07 Apr 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: The Hearing Of Appeal With The Permission Of The Honourable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vivek Vardhan, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 271(1)(c)

…from the said bank account, therefore, I have no other alternative but to upheld the order passed by the AO and dismiss the appeal following the ratio of the decision of the Hon’ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and also the decision of the Hon’ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in 233 ITR 480. 8. We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the material available on the record. In the present case we find that the Ld. CIT(A) passed the impugned order without considering the facts submitted by the assessee that the…

Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani, Junagadh vs. Income Tax Officer, Junagadh

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

ITA 783/RJT/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot04 Apr 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Dr. Arjun Lal Saini & Shri Dinesh Mohan Sinhaआयकरअपीलसं./Ita No. 783 & 784 /Rjt/2024 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Year: (2013-14 To 2014-15) (Hybrid Hearing) Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Junagadh, Army Haridwar Society, Nr. Kanya Ward-1, Chhatralay, Joshipara, Junagadh - 362001 Junagadh – 362002 "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No.: Alapr2172E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By : Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. Ar Respondent By : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 06/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement : 04/04/2025

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, Ld. ARFor Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Ld. Sr. DR

Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 272A(1)(d)Section 69A

…nor any adjournment was sought. Therefore, it is held that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. In such a situation, the appeal is likely to be dismissed in limine, in view of the decision in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukajirao Holkar Vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (M.P). It is held accordingly. 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed." Ashvinbhai Lavjibhai Rajani ITA No. 783 & 784 /Rjt/2024 (AY 2013-15) 5. The assessee filed an appeal against the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) before the Tribunal. 6. During the course of hearing, the…

Vineeta Devi, Etawah vs. Income Tax Officer, Etawah

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

ITA 15/AGR/2025[2019-2020]Status: DisposedITAT Agra02 Apr 2025AY 2019-2020

Bench: Shri Sunil Kumar Singh & Shri Brajesh Kumar Singh[Assessment Year: 2019-20]

Section 142(1)Section 147Section 148Section 148ASection 56(2)(x)Section 69A

…e the Ld. CIT(A). The Ld. CIT(A) gave numerous opportunity to the assessee but the assessee did not submit any response. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal relying inter alia upon decision in the case of CIT vs Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. (1991) (38 ITD 320). 6. Against the order of the ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us. 7. We have heard the ld. DR and perused the materials available on record. As submitted by the assessee that the order of the Ld. CIT(A) dated 23.10.2024 was seen by her only on 07.01.2025 and it was not received by her due to incorrect e-mail address. We, therefore,…

Savannah Phoenix Pvt Ltd, Mumbai vs. ITO Ward 5(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 297/MUM/2025[2014-15]Status: HeardITAT Mumbai13 Mar 2025AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey, Hon’Ble & Shri Narendra Kumar Billaiya, Hon’Ble

For Appellant: Shri Vijay Mehta, A/RFor Respondent: Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R

Section 68

…| आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण "ायपीठ, मुंबई | IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “G” BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI SAKTIJIT DEY, HON’BLE VICE PRESIDENT & SHRI NARENDRA KUMAR BILLAIYA, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No. 297/Mum/2025 Assessment Year: 2014-15 Savannah Phoenix Private Limited Assessment unit, Income Tax Department (Faceless C/o Marketcity Resources Private Vs Assessment) Limited Shree Laxmi Woolen Mills Estate RR Hosiery Bldg 2nd Floor, Mahalaxmi Mumbai - 400011 [PAN: AASCS0243C] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Vijay Mehta, A/R Revenue by : Shri Dr. Kishor Dhule, CIT D/R सुनवाई क…

Sachin Pandurang Alhat, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward 10(2), Pune

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

ITA 8/PUN/2025[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune10 Mar 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.8/Pun/2025 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2016-17 Sachin Pandurang Alhat, V The Income Tax Officer, Flat No.202, Bld No.P6, A S Ward-10(2), Pune. Wing, Gandarwanagari, Pune – 412501. Pan:Ahepa6396E Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Nikhil S. Pathak & Mrs. Arrchena Sheety Revenue By Shri Arvind Desai – Addl.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 10/03/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 10/03/2025 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)[Nfac] Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961; Dated 05.11.2024 For Assessment Year 2016-17. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. The Appellant Has Not Been Duly Represented By His Iip In The Course Of Assessment Proceedings & Have Again Not Been Duly

Section 148Section 250

…ough more than adequate opportunities were provided. Under the circumstances, I have no other alternative but to dismiss the appeal following the ratio of the decision of the Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Limited reported in 38 ITD 320 and also the decision of the Hon'ble MP High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in 233 ITR 480, accordingly, all the grounds raised in this appeal as reproduced in para 2 supra are dismissed.” 4.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/…

Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, Pune vs. ITO, Exemption Ward 1(2), Pune

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

ITA 1290/PUN/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Pune28 Feb 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: Shri Sachin P Kumar –For Respondent: Shri Ramnath P Murkunde

Section 11(1)Section 11(1)(d)Section 11(2)Section 12ASection 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 250

…आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण “ए” "ायपीठ पुणे म" । IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH, PUNE BEFORE SHRI R.K. PANDA, VICE PRESIDENT AND MS. ASTHA CHANDRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1290/PUN/2024 Assessment Year 2016-17 Shri Martand Deosansthan Jejuri, The Income Tax A/p.Jejuri, Tal. Purandar, Dist.Pune, Officer, Exemption Vs. Ward -1(2), Pune. Maharashtra – 412303. PAN: AAETS2704B अपीलाथ" / Appellant ""थ" / Respondent Assessee by : Shri Sachin P Kumar – Advocate Department by : Shri Ramnath P Murkunde Date of hearing : 10-12-2024 Date of 28-02-2025 Pronouncement : आदेश / ORDER PER ASTHA CHANDRA, JM…

Shyam Chelaramji Rangwani, Kheda vs. The ITO, Ward-5, Nadiad

The appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical

ITA 1947/AHD/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad18 Feb 2025AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Suchitra Kamble & Shri Makarand V. Mahadeokarआयकर अपील सं/Ita No.1947/Ahd/2024 निर्धारण वर्ष / Assessment Year : 2012-13 Shyam Chelaramji Rangwani The Ito 2, Vasant Vihar, बनाम / Ward-5 Nr. Zalak Hotel V/S. Nadiad - 387 002 (Gujarat) Petlad Road, Nadiad, Kheda – 387 002 (Gujarat) स्थायी लेखा सं./Pan: Aivpr 8944 Η प्रत्यर्थी/ (Respondent) अपीलार्थी/ (Appellant) Assessee By: Shri Manish J. Shah & Shyri Rushin Patel, Ars Revenue By : Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.Dr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 13/02/2025 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement: 18/02/2025 आदेश/Order Per Makarand V. Mahadeokar, Am: This Appeal Is Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of The Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nfac), Delhi [Hereinafter Referred To As “Cit(A)”], Dated 14-10-2024, Which Upheld The Assessment Order Passed Under Section 144 R.W.S.147 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 [Hereinafter Referred To As “The Act”] By The Assessing Officer, Ward-5, Nadiad [Hereinafter Referred To As “Ao"], For Assessment Year (Ay) 2012-13.

For Appellant: Shri Manish J. Shah &For Respondent: Shri Kavan Limbasiya, Sr.DR

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 156Section 69A

…non-prosecution, without adjudicating the grounds on merits. The CIT(A) relied on judicial precedents that permit dismissal for non-prosecution, including CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Others (1970) 10 CTR 354 (SC) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT. 5. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the assessee is in appeal before us with following grounds of appeal: ITA No.1947/Ahd/2024 Shyam Chelaramji Rangwani vs. The ITO Asst. Year: 2012-13 4 1. Notice issued u/s.148 dated 30.03.2019 and order passed u/s.144 r.W.S. 147 dated 12.12.2019 along with the demand notice issued u/s.156 are bad i…

Shailesh Parshuram Pavar, Nijampur vs. ITO Ward - 5 Panvel, Trifred Tower

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

ITA 1809/PUN/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Pune06 Feb 2025AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Manish Boradassessment Year : 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri Rushikesh KashyapFor Respondent: Shri Sanjay Dhivare, Addl. CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250(6)Section 69A

…3. In appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC confirmed both the additions made by the Assessing Officer. While doing so, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC relied on the decisions in the case of CIT vs. BN Bhattacharya (1997) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del). 4. Aggrieved with such order of Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal. 5. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee at the outset filed certain additional evidences before the Tribunal and requested to restore the issue to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC. 3 6. The Ld. DR on the other hand has not objected for restorin…

M/S Samrttha Developers, Pune vs. ITO Ward-2(1) Pune, Pune

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

ITA 2273/PUN/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Pune04 Feb 2025AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2015-16

For Appellant: Shri Sanket JoshiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari, CIT

Section 142(1)Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 69

…s granted, the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC in the ex-parte order 3 passed by him dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee. While doing so, he relied on the following decisions: i) CIT vs. BN Bhattachargee (1979) 118 ITR 461 (SC) ii) CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) iii) Estate of Late TukojiraoHolkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP) iv) New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P&H) v) M/s. Kanchan Singh Bhuli Devi Shikshavs vs. CIT vide ITA Nos.706 & 707/LKW/2010 vi) M/s. Shamsher Jang Bahadurvs vs. ACIT vide ITA No.488/Asr/2010 6. Aggrieved with such order of the Ld. CIT(A) / NFAC, the assessee is i…

Viola Singh, Bilaspur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward 1(4), Raipur

ITA 366/RPR/2024[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur31 Jan 2025AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No:366/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2010-11)

For Appellant: Shri G. S. Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 148(2)Section 250

…ia in Excise Appeal No.62 of 2009 has held that in the cases where the assessee does not want to pursue the appeal, appellate authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) the appeal filed by the appellant was dismissed for non-attendance. 5.1 Respectfully, following these judicial pronouncements (supra), the appeal filed by the appellant is treated as dismissed for non-prosecution. On merit also, the appellant has failed to disprove that the immovable property was not sold out by the deceased person. Neithe…

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1612/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2020-21

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

…have heard the Ld. Representatives of the parties and perused the material on records. The appellate order(s) of the Ld. CIT(A) for both the AYs involved i.e. AY 2018-19 and 2020-21 reveals that he has applied the decision in CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and CIT Vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee & Ors.10 CTR 354 (SC) and dismissed the appeal(s) of the assessee for want of prosecution. We further note that the Ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing appeal for AY 2018-19. No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A) may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal inspite of several…

Balasaheb Arjun Malawade, Solapur vs. ITO Ward 2(3), Solapur

In the result, the appeal(s) of the assessee for both the AYs 2018-19

ITA 1608/PUN/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Pune31 Jan 2025AY 2018-19

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Date of hearing

Section 10(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 69ASection 69C

Mukesh Kumar Mittal, Surajpur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 4/RPR/2025[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur27 Jan 2025AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.04/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2011-12 Mukesh Kumar Mittal Bhaiyathan Road, Post-Surajpur (C.G)-497 229 Pan: Amlpm8514A .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Ambikapur (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Ravi Agrawal, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 250Section 263Section 271(1)(c)

…e the reference is made 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference". 3. In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. 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 neither the revenue applicant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the p…

Sarita Konda, Raipur vs. Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 2/RPR/2025[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur24 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.02/Rpr/2025 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Sarita Konda Camelia Flat No.15, Block A01, 4Th Floor, Greenville City, Boriyakala, Raipur (C.G.) Pan: Aukps1814J .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer-1(1), Bhilai (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri R.B Doshi, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Tarannum Verma, Sr. DR

Section 143(3)Section 56(2)(v)

…ich 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…

Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Desai Street vs. Income Tax Officer, Second Floor

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

ITA 176/SRT/2024[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Surat21 Jan 2025AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Pawan Singh & Shri Bijayananda Prusethआयकर अपील सं./Ita No.176/Srt/2024 Assessment Year: (2011-12) (Hybrid Hearing) Nikunjkumar Ghanshyambhai Desai, Vs. The Ito, Panetha Desai Street Paneth, Zaghadia, Ward – 1(4), Bharuch – 393120, Gujarat Bharuch "थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./Pan/Gir No: Amgpd2814B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By Shri Piyush Panchal, Ca Respondent By Shri Mukesh Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 16/01/2025 Date Of Pronouncement 21/01/2025

Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)Section 69Section 69A

…CIT vs. B. N. Banerjee & Ors, (1977) 118 ITR 461 (SC) and stated that “preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it.” The CIT(A) also relied upon the decision of ITAT, Delhi in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and held that the law assist those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. The CIT(A) observed that the appellant was given sufficient opportunity to furnish the necessary details or documentary evidence, but he has failed to produce any supporting details to rebut the findings of AO. In absence of any evidence to the c…

Panchsheel Solvent Pvt. Ltd., Rajanandgaon vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Circle-2, Raipur

Appeal is allowed, partly for statistical purposes

ITA 110/RPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur20 Jan 2025AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri Ravish Sood, Jm & Shri Arun Khodpia, Am आयकर अपील सं. / Ita No: 110/Rpr/2024 (िनधा"रण वष" Assessment Year: 2016-17)

For Appellant: Shri Sunil Kumar Agrawal & Vimal KumarFor Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 144Section 250

…plication has also not been filed. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, we presume that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. Following the decision of the Tribunal reported in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.38 ITD 320 (Del) and the decision of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 1TR 480 (M.P) we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. No explanation has been furnished by the appellant at this stage on the findings and conclusion of the Id. AO. In absence of any explanation & on the basis…

Ranchi Fuels, Baloda Bazar, Bhatapara vs. Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee firm is allowed for statistical purposes in terms of the aforesaid observations

ITA 532/RPR/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Raipur08 Jan 2025AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Ravish Soodआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.532/Rpr/2024 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ranchi Fuels Limtara, Nandghat, Baloda Bazar-492 006 (C.G.) Pan: Aatfr0836L .......अपीलाथ" / Appellant बनाम / V/S. The Income Tax Officer, Bhatapara (C.G.) ……""यथ" / Respondent

For Appellant: Shri Veekaas S Sharma, CAFor Respondent: Smt. Anubhaa Tah Goel, Sr. DR

Section 127Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 68

…the reference is made 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference", 3. In the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. 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 neither the revenue applicant nor any communication for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Hon'ble Tribunal laid down 9 Ra…

Kcvr Infra Projects Private Limited, Hyderabad vs. ACIT., Central Circle-2(2), Hyderabad

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

ITA 1116/HYD/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad18 Dec 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Manjunatha G. & Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं /Ita No.1116/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा/Assessment Year: 2020-21) Kcvr Infra Projects Vs. Acit Private Limited Central Circle-2(2) Hyderabad Hyderabad [Pan : Aaeck2457N] (Appellant) (Respondent) निर्धाररती द्वधरध/Assessee By: Shri M.V.Prasad, Ar रधजस् व द्वधरध/Revenue By:: Shri R.Kumaran, Dr सुिवधई की तधरीख/Date Of Hearing: 18/12/2024 घोर्णध की तधरीख/Date Of 18/12/2024 Pronouncement: आदेश / Order Per. Manjunatha G., A.M: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 30.08.2024 Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) [Ld.Cit(A)]-12, Hyderabad, Pertaining To A.Y.2020-21. 2. The Brief Facts Of The Case Are That The Assessee Company Is Engaged In The Business Of Execution Of Civil Work Contracts, Filed The Original Return Of Income For The A.Y.2020-21 On 29.12.2020, Admitting Income Of Rs.7,01,39,640/-. The Return

For Appellant: Shri M.V.Prasad, ARFor Respondent: : Shri R.Kumaran, DR

Section 133ASection 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 194C

…'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. B.N.Bhattacharjee and Another (supra) and also the decision of Hon'ble MP High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CIT (223 ITR 480) (MP), ITAT, Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt.Ltd (38 ITD 320) (Del.) and M/s Helios and Matheson Inforamation Technology Ltd. Vs. ITO in ITA No.134/Mds/2011 dated 05.07.2011. But the fact remains that, the facts of the cases relied upon by the Ld.CIT(A) are not relevant in the present case, because, in those cases, the appellant not at all appeared before the authorities and filed details in support of thei…