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 367,636 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.

S. Harcharan Singh, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-2, Ludhiana

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1605/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptash.Gurbhej Singh Chawla, Vs. The Principal Cit-2, 49-A, Sargodha Colony, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aaupc1272A Sh.G.P. Singh, Huf Vs. The Principal Cit-2, 141-I, Sarabha Nagar, Ludhiana. Ludhiana. Pan: Aadhg5075L S.Harcharan Singh, Vs. The Principal Cit-2, Prop. M/S Meenakashi Ludhiana. Auto Industries, Street No.3, Vishwkarma Colony, Ludhiana. Pan: Afmps5525B & Smt.Harpreet Kaur Chawla, Vs. The Principal Cit-2, 49-A, Pakhowal Road Ludhiana. Sargodha Colony, Ludhiana. Pan: Adrpc8005D (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

Section 263

…levant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that : “ The appeal does not mean merely f iling of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 4. Our view further finds support from the following decisions also :- i) CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs.CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) 5. Respectfully following the decisions (supra), we dismiss the instant appeals filed by the assessees for non- prosecution. 6. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessees are able to cure the defect and show that there was a reasonable cause…

G.P. Singh HUF, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-2, Ludhiana

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1604/CHANDI/2017[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2018AY 2015-16

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

Section 263

Sh. Gurbhej Singh Chawla, Ludhiana vs. Pr. CIT-2, Ludhiana

In the result, all the four appeals of the assessee are

ITA 1603/CHANDI/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh23 May 2018AY 2014-15

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr.Gulshan Raj, CIT DR

Section 263

Reasonable Vincom Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 739/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. Am] I.T.A No. 739/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Reasonable Vincom Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd Pan: Aafcr0442R (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri G. Hangshing, Cit, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2018. Order Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Hangshing, CIT, ld.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. JM & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. AM] I.T.A No. 739/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Reasonable Vincom Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd PAN: AAFCR0442R (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G. Hangshing, CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 22-05-2018. Date of Pronouncement : 22-05-2018. ORDER Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 19-09-2016 of CIT(A)- 1, Kolkata, relating to AY 2012-13. 2. This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 22-05-20…

Wellbuild Vintrade Private Limited, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward 1(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 737/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. Am] I.T.A No. 737/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Wellbuild Vintrade Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. Pan: Aabcw 0890N (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 22-05-2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 22-05-2018. Order Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. JM & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. AM] I.T.A No. 737/Kol/2017 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Wellbuild Vintrade Vs. I.T.O., Ward-1(3), Kolkata Pvt. Ltd. PAN: AABCW 0890N (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 22-05-2018. Date of Pronouncement : 22-05-2018. ORDER Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 19-09-2016 of CIT(A)- 1, Kolkata, relating to AY 2012-13. 2. This appeal came for hearing tod…

Shri Mayank Garg, Jhansi vs. DCIT, Jhansi

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

ITA 152/AGR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Agra21 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri A.D. Jain & Dr. Mitha Lal Meenadcit, Circle – 2(3)(1), Shri Mayank Garg, 75, Cav Alary Road, Vs. Jhansi. Jhansi Pan Agtpa 5689 E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Waseem Arshad, SR DR

…ears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further. As such, we hold that the 2 appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard we place reliance upon the following case laws: 1. CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del) 2. Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) 3. New Diwan Oil Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 (P& H) 4. CIT vs. B. N. Bhattachargee And Another 118 ITR 461(SC) 3. Respectfully following the view taken in the cases cited (supra), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, g…

Smt Saryu Rajnikant Kampani, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward -31(4), Kol, Kolkata

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

ITA 1559/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. Jm & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. Am] I.T.A No. 1559/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Saryu Rajnikant Kampani -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-3(4), Pan: Afopk4154Q Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit, Ld.Dr Date Of Hearing : 21-05-2018. Date Of Pronouncement : 21-05-2018. Order Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, Am

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Sri Aby. T. Varkey, Hon. JM & Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Hon. AM] I.T.A No. 1559/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2007-08 Smt. Saryu Rajnikant Kampani -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-3(4), PAN: AFOPK4154Q Kolkata (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT, ld.DR Date of Hearing : 21-05-2018. Date of Pronouncement : 21-05-2018. ORDER Dr. Arjun Lal Sani, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 11.12..2015 of CIT(A)- 9, Kolkata, relating to AY 2007-08. 2. It is noticed that the appeal file…

M/S Jld Cement Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD.5(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 50/KOL/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata18 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm & Dr. A. L. Saini, Am]

Section 131Section 263

…1 M/s. JLD Cement (P) Ltd., AY- 2008-09 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “D” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH: KOLKATA (सम") "ी ऐ. ट". वक", "यायीक सद"य एवं डॉ. अजु"न लाल सैनी, लेखा सद"य) [Before Shri A. T. Varkey, JM & Dr. A. L. Saini, AM] I.T.A. No. 50/Kol/2017 Assessment Year: 2008-09 M/s. JLD Cement Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Income-tax Officer, Wd-5(2), Kolkata (PAN: AADCS9409F) Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 08.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 18.05.2018 For the Appellant Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR For the Respondent Shri A. K. Tiwari, CIT ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM The appeal filed by the as…

Swastik Urban Resources Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of

ITA 487/CTK/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack17 May 2018AY 2013-14

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2013-2014

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…. Hence, it is not possible to serve the notice of hearing on the assessee. In view of above, we infer that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal which is hereby dismissed for non- Asse ssment Year : 20 13- 201 4 (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. Order pronounced on 17 /05/2018. sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 17/05/2018 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Swastick Urban Resources Pvtg Ltd., 2nd floor, B/23/1,…

M/S Janardan Cememnt Co Pvt Ltd, Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 3, Asansol

Appeal is dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 1296/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 May 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M.Jagtap & Shri S.S.Godaraassessment Year:2008-09

Section 143(3)

…that it has been granted sufficient opportunity to present its case. Above facts suggest that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the instant appeal. We quote hon’ble Delhi Tribunal’s decision(s) in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan (I) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del), 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. & conclude that the instant appeal deserve to be dismissed for non-prosecution. 3. This appeal is dismissed for non prosecution. Order pronounced in open court on 17/05/2018 (लेखा स…

Smt. Seema Chhabra, Ludhiana vs. ITO, W-VI(3), Ludhiana

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1507/CHANDI/2017[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Chandigarh15 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Ms. Annapurna Guptaseema Chhabra, Vs. The I.T.O., Ludhiana. W-Vi(3), Ludhiana. Pan: Acgpc3028C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms.Deepika Mohan, JCIT DR

…levant pages 477 & 478) wherein their Lordships have held that : “ The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it.” 4. Our view further finds support from the following decisions also :- i) CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) ii) Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs.CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP) 5. Respectfully following the decisions (supra), we dismiss the instant appeal filed by the assessee for non- prosecution. We may add that the assessee is at liberty to pray for a recall of the order in case it is serious in pursuing the appeal. 6. In the result, the appeal of t…

Anil Products Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Range-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1808/AHD/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 May 2018AY 2009-10

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 Krishna Murari, CIR-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…

Mangala Dnyaneshwar Pathare, Pune vs. Income Tax Officer, Pune

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed as indicated above

ITA 682/PUN/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Pune11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Sushma Chowla, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Modi

Section 143(3)Section 234BSection 54B

…ssessee nor any application was filed for adjournment. A perusal of the record shows that the CIT(A) to have dismissed the appeal of assessee relied on the ratio laid down by Delhi Bench of Tribunal in the case of CIT Vs. M/s. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 ( Del.) and also on the decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of CIT Vs. B. N. Bhattachargee & ANR (1979) 118 ITR 461. The CIT(A) has decided the issue also on merit by upholding the order of Assessing Officer as the assessee had failed to appear before her. 5. In the first instance, the CIT(A) has erred in applying the ratio laid dow…

Anil Tradecom Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2482/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri Mahavir Prasad)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Jayant Jhaveri, Sr. D.R

…sessee though the notice fixing the date of hearing was served on Assessee, which indicates that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal, therefore, following the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. The assessee shall however be at liberty to approach the Tribunal for recalling of this order, if prevented by sufficient cause for non-appearance on the date of hearing. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the Assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in Open Court on 11 - 05- 2018 (WASEEM…

Mohammed Rafi, Howrah vs. ACIT Circle 47, Kolkata

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

ITA 1000/KOL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2018AY 2012-13

For Appellant: Mohammed Rafi Prop: M.R & CoFor Respondent: The ACIT Cir-47, Kolkata

…ation seeking adjournment filed on behalf of the assessee. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his case. In view of the above, following the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 1 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 10-05-2018 P.M. Jagtap S.S.Viswanethra Rav…

Sitaram Prasad, Durgapur vs. ITO, WD-1(2), Durgapur

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

ITA 543/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata10 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 543/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2007-08 Shri Sitaram Prasad..............................………………………….........................Appellant Bonogram, Gopalmath, Durgapur – 713 217 [Pan: Afipp 9208 G] Ito, Ward 1(2), Durgapur...................…………………………………………Respondent Aayakar Bhawan, Aayakar Bithi, City Centre, Durgapur – 713 216. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri A. Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : May 10, 2018 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : May 10, 2018 Order Per P.M. Jagtap, Am This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit(A) – Durgapur Dated 27.01.2016 Whereby He Confirmed The Penalty Of Rs. 60,245/- Imposed By The A.O. Under Section 271(1)(C) Of The Income Tax Act, 1961. 2. The Appeal Filed By The Assessee In This Case Was Initially Fixed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 16.11.2017. None, However, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Said Date & Accordingly, The Hearing Was Adjourned To 01.01.2018 With The Direction To The Registry To Send The Notice Of The Said Hearing By Rpad To The Address Of The Assessee As Given In The Appeal Memo. On 01.01.2018, Again None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. In Order To Give One More Opportunity To The Assessee, The Case Was Adjourned To 28.02.2018

Section 271(1)(c)

…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 10th May…

M/S Shree Jewellers, Chandigarh vs. Pr.CIT-1, Chandigarh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 293/CHANDI/2017[2012-13]Status: PendingITAT Chandigarh09 May 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Ms. Diva Singh & Ms. Annapurna Guptaassessment Year: 2012-13 Shree Jewellers, Vs. The Pr.Cit-1, Sco-5, Sector 19-D, Chandigarh. Chandigarh. Pan No. : Aaxfs8977P (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Tej Mohan Singh, Advocate (Proxy Counsel)For Respondent: Dr. Gulshan Raj, CIT-DR

Section 132

…rejected as it appears that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed as the details have still not been made available to the assessee. Support is from the order of the ITAT Delhi Benches in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 and the decision of Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Shri Tukoji Rao Holkar Vs Wealth Tax Commissioner 223 ITR 480 (MP) etc. 4. Before parting, it is appropriate to add that in the eventuality the assessee is able to show that there was a reasonable cause for not filing the details, and on the undertaking given that he is read…

M/S N. K. P. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, CC-VII, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 536/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata09 May 2018AY 2007-2008

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

…1 N. K. P. Holdings Pvt. Ltd., AY 2007-08 आयकर अपील"य अधीकरण, "यायपीठ – “C” कोलकाता, IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” 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. 536/Kol/2014 Assessment Year: 2007-08 M/s. N. K. P. Holdings Pvt. Ltd. Vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income-tax, (PAN: AABCN0577B) Central Circle-VII, Kolkata. Appellant Respondent Date of Hearing 08.03.2018 Date of Pronouncement 09.05.2018 For the Appellant N o n e For the Respondent Shri P. K. Srihari, CIT, DR ORDER Per Shri A.T.Varkey, JM Th…

Rakesh Mahajan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 864/BANG/2018[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep .C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154

…ng the appeal before CIT (A) in both years. This is also seen that the CIT (A) has not decided the issue on merit. He has dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine by following the Tribunal order in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Ltd. as reported in 38 ITD 320. In my considered opinion, even if the appeal is decided ex-parte qua the assessee, the same should be decided on merit as per material available on record. Considering all these facts, I feel it proper to restore the matter back to the file of CIT(A) for decision on merit after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. I order…

Shri.Rakesh Mahajan, Bangalore vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-8(1), Bangalore

In the result, both the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 863/BANG/2018[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore04 May 2018AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodia

For Appellant: Shri Sandeep .C, CAFor Respondent: Shri Abdul Hakeem .M, JCIT (DR)

Section 143(1)Section 154