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 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.

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 2973/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri. T. S. Kapoor

…ed. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 2. 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 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed. 3. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. However, the assessee is at liberty to file application for recall of this order. Ord…

Ntpc Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 2972/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: HeardITAT Delhi18 Dec 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt. Diva Singh & Shri. T. S. Kapoor

…ed. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 2. 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 (Delhi)] and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT [223 ITR 480 (MP)], this appeal is treated as un-admitted and dismissed. 3. In result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution. However, the assessee is at liberty to file application for recall of this order. Ord…

Millenium Road Construction Pvt. Ltd., Hooghly vs. JCIT, R-2, Jalpaiguri

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1321/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata14 Dec 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 1321/Kol/2015 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Millenium Road Construction Pvt. Ltd..............................……………….Appellant C/O. S.N. Ghosh & Associates, Advocates, ‘Seben Brothers Lodge’ Buroshibtala, Chinsurah, Hooghly – 712 105 [Pan: Aaecm 2990 E] J.C.I.T Range – 2, Jalpaiguri...................………………………………………Respondent Central Revenue Building, Naya Busti, Corporation Road, Kotwali, Jalpaiguri – 735 101 Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindambhattacharjee, Addl. Cit Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : December 14, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : December 14, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – Jalpaiguri Dated 07.08.2015. 2. In This Case, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Fixed For Hearing On 19.09.2017. The Assessee, However, Sought Adjournment On The Said Date & Accordingly The Hearing Was Adjourned To 31.10.2017. The Assessee Again Sought Adjournment On 31.10.2017 & Accordingly Hearing Was Adjourned To 14.12.2017 In Order To Give One More Opportunity To The Assessee. On 14.12.2017 I.E. Today, None However Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Has Any Application Seeking Adjournment Has Been Filed. It Appears

…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. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 14th December, 2017. (S.S. Vi…

Shri Aniruddhsinh Valkubha Kathi, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 35/AHD/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad13 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Respondent: Shri Sumit Kumar Verma, Sr.DR

…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 13/12/2017 एन.के. "ब"लैया महावीर "साद (लेखा सद"य) ("या"यक सद"य) ( MAHA…

Prasanta Kumar Dash, Bhubaneswar vs. CIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 274/CTK/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack12 Dec 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2011- 2012

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Saad Kidwai, CIT DR
Section 263

…From the above conduct of the assessee, we infer that the assessee is not interested in pursuing his appeal before the Tribunal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt Ltd.m 38 ITD 320 (Del). Accordingly, we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 12 /12/2017. sd/- (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER Cuttack; Dated 12 /12/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Prasanta Kumar Dash, Flat No.205, N.A. Ma…

M/S Shanti Builder & Promoters, Agra vs. DCIT-1, Agra

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

ITA 97/AGR/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Agra11 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. D. Jain

…is not interested in prosecuting the appeal any further. As such, I hold that the appeal is liable to be dismissed for non prosecution. In this regard I place reliance upon the following case laws: I.T.A No. 97/Agra/2016 2 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), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee for non prosecution. The assessee may, however, ge…

Sh. Sudershan Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 395/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 395/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sudershan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/O Sh. Jaswant Singh, Ward-44(3), R/O J-127, First Floor, Front Side, New Delhi-110002 Gali No. 9, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Adspk2136N Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 11.12.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 11.12.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 27.10.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-15, Delhi.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 395/Del/2017 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 Sh. Sudershan Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, S/o Sh. Jaswant Singh, Ward-44(3), R/o J-127, First Floor, Front Side, New Delhi-110002 Gali No. 9, Mohan Garden, Uttam Nagar, New Delhi-110059 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ADSPK2136N Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Ashima Neb, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 11.12.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 11.12.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.10.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-15, Delhi. 2. Earlier t…

Shri Rashmikant Mohanlal Suthar, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Office, Ward-5(3)(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3346/AHD/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad08 Dec 2017AY 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 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…

V.G.Manjunath, Bangalore vs. The Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-2(2)(1), Bangalore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed

ITA 349/BANG/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Dec 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Jason P Boaz & Shri Lalit Kumar

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri B.R. Ramesh, JCIT (DR), Bengaluru

…“VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS SERVIUNT LEGES”. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case 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), the appeal is dismissed. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee for Assessment Year 2009-10 is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 6th Dec., 2017. (LALIT KUMAR) Judicial Member Bangalore, Dt.06.12.2017. *Reddy gp Copy to : 1 Appellant 4 CIT(A) 2 Respondent 5 DR. ITAT, Bangalore 3 CIT 6 Guard File Senior Private Secre…

Leeladhar Rungta, Chennai vs. ITO Ncr 11(1), Chennai

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

ITA 2234/CHNY/2017[2014-15]Status: PendingITAT Chennai05 Dec 2017AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddyआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.2234/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2014-15 Leeladhar Rungta, The Income Tax Officer, 24, Venkatesa Maistry St., Vs. Ncr 11(1), Chennai 600 001. Chennai - 6. [Pan: Aabhl1610C] (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से / Appellant By : None ""यथ" क" ओर से/Respondent By : Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख/ Date Of Hearing : 04.12.2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement : 05.12.2017 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) 13, Chennai Dated 18.07.2017 Relevant To The Assessment Year 2014-15. 2. The Appeal Of The Assessee Was Posted For Hearing On 04.12.2017 By Service Of Notice [Rpad On Record]. None Appeared On Behalf Of The 2

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. S. Vijayaprabha, JCIT

…has been filed. 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 5th December, 2017 at Chennai. (A. MOHAN ALANKAMONY) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated…

M/S. Diamond Jewels Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals as well as cross objections of the

ITA 1154/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

…as cross objections are therefore, 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 appeal b…

M/S. Diamond Hut India Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, appeals as well as cross objections of the

ITA 1153/DEL/2013[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Respondent: Ms. Rachna Singh, CIT-D.R

…as cross objections are therefore, 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 appeal b…

Shri Ramprasad Khati, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the

ITA 670/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

…ance 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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India 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 Rameshwar Khatri – ITA No. 669/Ind/2016 Ramprasad Khatri ITA 670/Ind/2016 for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue…

Shri Rameshwar Khati, Indore vs. The ITO 3(3), Indore

In the result, the appeals filed by the

ITA 669/IND/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Dec 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Ble

…ance 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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India 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 Rameshwar Khatri – ITA No. 669/Ind/2016 Ramprasad Khatri ITA 670/Ind/2016 for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue…

M/S. Madhya Pradesh Madhya Kshetra Vidyut Vitran Company Ltd., Bhopal vs. The DCIT 2(1), Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 1056/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Dec 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blea.Y. 2009-10

…ance 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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India 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 M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribun…

The ACIT, 1(1), Bhopal vs. M/S. M.P. State Cooperative Housing Federation Society, Bhopal

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee

ITA 1055/IND/2016[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Indore04 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri Kul Bharat, Hon’Ble & Shri Manish Borad, Hon’Blea.Y. 2009-10

…ance 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, the court is not bound to answer the reference.” iii) In the case of CIT v. Multiplan India 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 M/s M.P. Vidyut Vitaran Company for adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why the revenue chose to remain absent on date. The Tribun…

Mortex India, Kolkata vs. CIT-15, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 750/KOL/2016[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Dec 2017AY 2012-2013

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 4th day of December, 201…

V.Muthuraman, L/H to M.Vairavan, Madurai vs. DCIT, Madurai

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

ITA 1142/CHNY/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai30 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy & Shri S. Jayaramanआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A.No.1142/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year:2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Vijayakumar Punna, St. Counsel
Section 263

…has been filed. 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. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on the 30th November, 2017 at Chennai. (S. JAYARAMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBER Chennai, Dated, the 3…

Sh. Simon Marandi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 5446/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

…that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its appeal. 2 ITA No.5446/Del./2014 Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP). 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as indicated above. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2017. (H.S. Sidhu) Accountant Member Dated: 30.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner…

Shibu Soren, Jharkhand vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 2763/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi30 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

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

…that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in 2 ITA No. 2763/Del./2012 limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders of Tribunal in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and of M.P. High Court in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP). 3. In the result, the appeal is dismissed, as indicated above. Order is pronounced in the open court on 30.11.2017. (H.S. Sidhu) Accountant Member Dated: 30.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner…