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.

M/S. Venus Investments, Baroda vs. The ACIT, Circle-2(2), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3223/AHD/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Parting, It Is Appropriate To Add That In Case The Assessee Is Able To Show That There Was A Reasonable Cause For Non- Representation On The Date Of Hearing, It Would Be At Liberty If So Advised To Pray For A Recall Of This Order.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Mudit Nagpal, 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…

Shri Harish V. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The ACIT., Circle-2(1), Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2686/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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 Mudit Nagpal, Sr. D.R
Section 271(1)(c)

…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…

Shri Jagdishbhai B. Narola, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar

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

ITA 166/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri S. S. Godara)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, 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 22 - 11- 2017 (S. S.…

Deepak Rana, Noida vs. ITO, Ward-65(5), New Delhi

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

ITA 3808/DEL/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R. K. Pandaassessment Year : 2009-10 Deepak Rana, Ito, Ward- 65(5), B-1, Vishal Chambers, P-1, New Delhi. Sector-18, Noida, Vs. Noida, Uttar Pradesh.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Yamini, Sr.DR

…ournment of the case has been filed. This type of attitude on the part of the assessee shows that he is not interested in prosecuting the appeal filed by him. Therefore, following the decision of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) 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 2 application can justify such non-appearance on the date of hearing, the Tribunal may at its discretion recall the order. 3…

M/S. Cane Development Council, Rohanakalan, Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 6480/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

…s that the assessee is not interested in 2 ITA No. 6480/Del./2014 prosecuting the appeal. 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 22.11.2017. (Bhavnesh Saini) Accountant Member Dated: 22.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commission…

Easy Fit Jewellery Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, Cir-2(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 412/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: M/s. Easy Fit Jewellery Pvt. LtdFor Respondent: The DCIT, Cir-2(1)

…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 1 the ITAT, Delhi Bench in 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 21-11-2017. P.M. Jagtap S.S.Viswanethra Ra…

Kashi Nath Sinha, South 24 Parganas vs. ITO, Ward - 33(3), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/KOL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap, Am & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi, Jm] I.T.A. No. 249/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Kashi Nath Sinha.............................………………………………………Appellant Roynagar, Diamond Harbour, South 24 Parganas - 743331 [Pan: Aujps7172C] Ito, Ward 33(3)...................…………………………………………………….Respondent 10B, Middle Ton Row, Kolkata – 700016. Appearances By: None Appearing On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Arindam Bhattacharjee, Addl. Cit (Dr) Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : November 21, 2017 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : November 21, 2017 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of Ld. Cit (Appeals) – 9, Kolkata Dated 10.12.2015. 2. In This Case, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Was Initially Fixed For Hearing Before The Tribunal On 12.10.2017. None, However, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Said Date. The Hearing, Therefore, Was Adjourned To 21.11.2017 With The Direction To The Registry To Send The Notice Of The Said Hearing To The Assessee At The Address Given In The Appeal Memo By Rpad. On 21.11.2017 I.E. Today None, However, Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Nor Any Application Seeking Adjournment Has Been Filed. It Appears From This Conduct Of The Assessee That He Is Not Seriously Interested In Prosecuting This Appeal Filed Before The Tribunal. It Is Also Noted That There Was No Compliance On The Part Of The Assessee To Notices Issued

…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, 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 21st November, 2017. (S.S. Vis…

M/S Felex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all 05 Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 2747/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

…of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeals. Page 1 of 2 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT 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 Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpo…

M/S Felex Enterprises Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, all 05 Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 2746/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT(DR)

…of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeals. Page 1 of 2 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT 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 Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpo…

M/S Mathur Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2741/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishimathur Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd, Vs. Ito, 29, Shivaji Marg, Najafgarh Road, Ward-16(3), New Delhi New Delhi Pan:Aaacm0006B (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Aparna Karan, CIT DR

…e 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. (iii). 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 the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for Mathur Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd Vs. ITO, adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date…

M/S. A.N. Construction, Rampur vs. ITO-I, Rampur

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

ITA 2555/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishim/S. An Construction, Vs. Ito-I, C/O. Ahsaan Colony, Diamond Road, Rampur Moshin E-Azam Colony, Diamond Road, Rampur Pan:Aajfa1468M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Amt Aparna Karan, CIT DR

…e 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. (iii). 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 M/s. AN Construction Vs. ITO-I, hearing nobody represented 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 Tribu…

Shiv Bhatia, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2441/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

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

…s that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the orders of Tribunal in 2 ITA No. 2441/Del./2016 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 21.11.2017 (Bhavnesh Saini) Accountant Member Dated: 21.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissione…

M/S. Mahila Jagriti and Vikas Kendra, Rohtak vs. ACIT, Rewari

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 5271/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2010-11

…appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. 2. 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.); ITA 5271/Del/2015 A.Y. 2010-11 Mahila Jagriti and Vikas Kendra, Rohtak 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 he…

N.S. Committee, Thana Bhawan (Now Known As Ganna Vikas Parishad, Thana Bhawan), Gorakhpur vs. DCIT, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-

ITA 7093/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. D.R

…peal of assessee is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 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…

M/S. Cane Development Council, Shamli, Uttar Pradesh vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

The appeal of the assessee is dismissed as un-

ITA 6479/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Shri Raghunath, Sr. D.R

…peal of assessee is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 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…

Countrywide Homes & Farms Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6173/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

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

…hat the assessee is no more interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, the appeal of the assessee deserves to be 2 ITA No. 6173/Del./2014 dismissed in limine for want of prosecution in view of the order 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 21.11.2017. (Bhavnesh Saini) Accountant Member Dated: 21.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commission…

Sh. Ravinder Kumar, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 5574/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishiravinder Kumar, Vs. Dcit, E-1A, Maharani Bagh, Central Circle-4, New Delhi New Delhi Pan: Aaapk4245M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Apurva Karan, CIT DR

…e 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. (iii). 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 the revenue / applicant, nor any communication for Ravinder Kumar Vs. DCIT, adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on…

M/S. Ram Dev Rice Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Karnal

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 4479/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt. Beena A Pillaia.Y. 2008-09

…appeal of assessee is liable to be dismissed as un-admitted. 2. 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 but…

Smt. Preeti Srivastava, New Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed for non-

ITA 5200/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Smt Beena Pillaiassessment Year: 2009-10 Preeti Srivastava, Vs. Ito, Flat No.A-803, Plot No.10, Ward 2(1), Brindavan Garden, Sector-12, Ghaziabad. Dwarka, New Delhi. Pan: Bhdps1463G (Appellant) (Respondent)

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

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : F : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, VICE PRESIDENT AND SMT BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2009-10 Preeti Srivastava, Vs. ITO, Flat No.A-803, Plot No.10, Ward 2(1), Brindavan Garden, Sector-12, Ghaziabad. Dwarka, New Delhi. PAN: BHDPS1463G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Shri Atiq Ahmad, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 20.11.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 20.11.2017 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, VP: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.07.2012 in relation to the assessment year…

Jhunjhunu Balaji Motors Pvt. Ltd., Jaipur vs. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Jhunjhunu

In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 640/JPR/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur20 Nov 2017AY 2009-10
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Smt. Poonam Rai (DCIT)

…o no application for adjournment. Therefore, this conduct of assessee shows that assessee is not interested in pursuing its appeal. In these 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 (MP), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 07/12/2017. 2 ITA No. 640/JP/2017. Jhunjhunu…