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 367,518 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.

K. Beeran Kutti, Tirupathi vs. ITO, Ward-1(1). Tirupathi], Tirupathi

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

ITA 715/HYD/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad24 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri D. Manmohan & Shri S. Rifaur Rahmanassessment Year: 2010-11 M/S Beeran Kutti, Tirupati Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Ward – 1(1), Hyderabad. Pan – Aaff1370E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. N. Swapna

Section 143(3)Section 145Section 40

…miss the appeal for non- 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 and is a Diet Contractor for SVRR Hospital, Tirupati and extended services to the other Govt. Hospitals at Tirupati. It filed its return of income for…

Shri Eknath Chandu Jagadale, Bijapur vs. Income Tax Officer Ward-1, Bijapur

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

ITA 2218/BANG/2017[2002-03]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore24 Jan 2018AY 2002-03

Bench: Shri Arun Kumar Garodiaassessment Year : 2002-03

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR)

Section 143(3)Section 148Section 54B

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC-A” BENCH : BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI ARUN KUMAR GARODIA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2002-03 Shri Eknath Chandu Jagadale Through L/H Shri Arun Eknath Jagadale, The Income Tax Officer, Dhobale Galli, Vs. Ward – 1, Near UppaliBuruz Road, Bijapur. Bijapur – 586 101. PAN: AAGHA 1783C APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Vimal Anand, Addl. CIT (DR) Date of hearing : 18.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 24.01.2018 O R D E R Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member This appeal is filed by the assessee which is directed against the order of ld. CIT…

Smt Rajul Modi, Kolkata vs. JCIT Cir-31, Kolkata

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

ITA 419/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata23 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 419/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12

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

Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 419/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Smt. Rajul Modi -vs.- J.C.I.T., Circle-31, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AEAPM 8483 P] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G.Hangshing, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 23.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 23.01.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 29.02.2016 of C.I.T- 11, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (Act). 2. This appeal was listed for he…

C. Doctor & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT, Circle-10(1), Mumbai Now Dy.CIT, Circle-1(1)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 511/AHD/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2018AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 511/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2009-10) C. Doctor & Co. Pvt. Ltd., Dcit बनाम/ 3Rd Floor, Bank Of Baroda Circle 1(1)(2), Vs. Building, Fuvara, Ahmedbad. Gandhi Road, Ahmedabad "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aaacc 2362 G .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) --None-- अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

…Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/01/2018 ¼izeksn dqekj izeksn dqekj izeksn dqekj½ izeksn dqekj ¼egkohj…

Landmark Probuild Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(1)(3), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 499/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Pramod Kumar & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 499/Ahd/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2012-13) Landmark Probuild Pvt. Ltd., Ito, बनाम/ 341/8B, Swagat Park Ward 2(1)(3), Vs. Bunglow Road, Ahmedabad. Near Narayan Darshan Bunglow, Thaltej, Off. S.G. Highway Ahmedabad – 380 054 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aabcl 9041 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) --None-- अपीलाथ" ओर से / Appellant By : ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R.

For Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R

Anunay Fab Pvt. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs. The Dy. CIT, Circle-1, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 382/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad19 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasad

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri V. K. Singh, Sr. D.R

…Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480(M.P.) dismissed the reference filed by the assessee for not taking necessary steps. Similar view is taken by I.T.A.T., Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320. Considering the above, it appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. We, therefore, dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non-prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. This Order pronounced in Open Court on 29/01/2018 एन.के. "ब"लैया महावीर "साद (लेखा सद"य) ("या"यक सद"य) ( MAHAV…

Shri Govind Chitlangia, Kishangarh vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Kishangarh

ITA 768/JPR/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur18 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Poonum Rai (DCIT)

…ment has been filed then it is apparent that the assessee is not interested in perusing and prosecution of the present appeal. 3. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgment of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine for non prosecution as pronounced in the open Court on 22.01.2018. ¼fot; iky jko½ ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (Vikram Singh Yadav) (Vijay Pal Rao) ys[kk…

Sangeetha Kesav Malkhede, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

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

ITA 313/CHNY/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai18 Jan 2018AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.313/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2011-12 Smt. Sangeetha Kesav Malkhede, The Deputy Commissioner Of No. 3/8, Kumar’S Bridavan, Kasturibai Vs. Income Tax, Nagar, 2Nd Main Road, Adyar, Ncc 18, Chennai 600 020. Chennai . [Pan: Ahaps0705R] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.01.2018 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 18.01.2018 आदेश /O R D E R Per Duvvuru Rl Reddy: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Emanates From The Order Of The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals) 18, Chennai Dated 28.11.2016 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Posted For Hearing On 10.04.2017, Despite Service Of Notice [Ad On Record], None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & At The Request Of The Ld. Ar, The Hearing Of The Appeal Is 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sanat Kumar Raha, JCIT

…g on 04.01.2018. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. 3. Therefore, having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. 4. Order pronounced on the 18th January, 2018 at Chennai. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated,…

M/S Golden Shearing, Howrah vs. ITO, WD-47(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 418/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

For Appellant: M/s. Golden Shearing, 135/6, Girish GhoshFor Respondent: The ITO, Ward 47(4)

…of assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. 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 1 the case of 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 17-01-2018 P.M. Jagtap S.S.Viswanethra Rav…

M/S Ashok Engg. & Construction Co., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-31, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 350/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…s 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 Holkar –vs.- C.W.T. reported in 223 ITR 480, I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same for non- prosecution. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 17th day of January, 20…

Sanyasi Infrastructures Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-6(4), New Delhi, Kolkata

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

ITA 1304/KOL/2015[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2018AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon’Ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, Am ] I.T.A No. 1304/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Sanyasi Infrastructures Private Ltd. -Vs- Ito, Ward-6(4), New Delhi, Presently I.T.O, Wd-11(2), Kolkata [Pan : Aaecm 3202 F] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Md. Usman, CIT DR

Section 143(3)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Hon’ble Sri Waseem Ahmed, AM ] I.T.A No. 1304/Kol/2015 Assessment Year : 2006-07 Sanyasi Infrastructures Private Ltd. -vs- ITO, Ward-6(4), New Delhi, Presently I.T.O, Wd-11(2), Kolkata [PAN : AAECM 3202 F] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Md. Usman, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 17.01.2018 Date of Pronouncement : 17.01.2018 ORDER Per Waseem Ahmed, AM: 1. This appeal by the assessee arises out of the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-12, Kolkata [in s…

Nambiar Sree Vidhya, the Nilgiris vs. DCIT, Ootacamund

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 962/CHNY/2017[2013-2014]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai16 Jan 2018AY 2013-2014

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri, M. Balaganesh

For Appellant: Mr.S.Bharathi, CIT D.R

…to pursue the appeal. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in conducting the case, hence following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ITA No.962/Mds./2017 :- 2 -: C.I.T. vs. Multiplan (India) Ltd.(38 ITD 320) (Del.), we hereby dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee in limine. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court after conclusion of hearing on the 16th January, 2018. (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन) (एम बाला गणेश) (N.R.S. GANESAN) (M. BALAGANESH) "या"यक सद"य/Judicial Member लेखा सद"य /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/…

Smt. Mitsu D. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(4), Ahmedabad

ITA 1387/AHD/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad15 Jan 2018AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Antony Pariath, Sr. D.R

Section 143(3)

…on 16.11.2017 and 15.01.2018. We therefore ITA No. 1387/Ahd/15 [Smt. Mitsu D. Patel vs. ITO] A.Y. 2006-07 - 2 - infer that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal, and accordingly, following the decision of the Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd., (38 ITD 320), we dismiss this appeal filed by assessee for want of prosecution. 3. This assessee’s appeal is accordingly dismissed for non prosecution. [Pronounced in the open Court on this the 15th day of January, 2018.] (PRADIP KUMAR KEDIA) (S. S. GODARA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad: Dated 15/01/2018S.K.SINHA आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत / Cop…

Shri Subhash S. Soni vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(4), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 2362/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad05 Jan 2018AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Pradip Kumar Kediaआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.2362/Ahd/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2008-09)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Dr. Jayant Jhaveri, Sr.DR

…at 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 Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P.). 3. Before parting, it would be appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show that there existed 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. In the result, the appe…

Shri Gautam Das, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-32(3), Kolkata

ITA 846/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon‟Ble Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy, Am & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm]

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

Section 250Section 254(2)

…e, 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 H. L. Shaw & Others (HUF), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-42/43, Kolkata

In the result, both appeal of assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 565/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

…d keeping in view the provisions of rule 19(2) of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules as were considered in the case of ITA No.564-565/Kol/2016 A.Ys 09-10 & 11-12 M/s H.L. Shaw & Others (HUF) Vs. ACIT, Cir-42/43, Kol. Page 2 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: "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 pape…

M/S H. L. Shaw & Others (HUF), Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-42/43, Kolkata

In the result, both appeal of assessee stand dismissed in limine

ITA 564/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Jan 2018AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

Indra Devi Chhallani, Chennai vs. ITO Non Corporate Ward 4(2), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2163/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai04 Jan 2018AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS,JCIT

…g the assessee appeared nor has any adjournment request been received. Hence, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) ITA No.2163 /Mds/2017 :- 2 -: (Del), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 2. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 4th day of January, 2018, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated: 4th January, 20…

M/S. Ravi Gem & Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5655/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 Jan 2018AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms. Suchitra Kambleassessment Year : 2010-11 Ravi Gem & Jewellery Exports Pvt. Ito, Ward- 15(3), Ltd., New Delhi. 94, Kailash Hills, Lane No.7, Vs. New Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr.DR

…e of address, if any. This type of attitude on the part of the assessee shows that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the 2 appeal filed by it. Therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) (P) Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 and the decision of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar reported in 223 ITR 480 (MP), the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in- limine. However, if the assessee through proper application can satisfy the Bench for such non-appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion recall…

Abdul Rahim, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward - 32(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 271/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2018AY 2012-2013

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am] I.T.A No. 271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abdul Rahim -Vs.- C.I.T.(A)-9, Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Acmpr 3221 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Shri Waseem Ahmed, AM] I.T.A No. 271/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2012-13 Abdul Rahim -vs.- C.I.T.(A)-9, Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : ACMPR 3221 L] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 03.01.2018. Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2018. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order 14.01.2016 of C.I.T.(A)-9, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2012-13. 2. This appeal was listed for hearing on 05.10.2017. Notice…