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.

Smt. Shantaben J. Patel, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Anand

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 3287/AHD/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2017AY 2005-06

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 Shwetal J. Patel, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(2), Ahmedabad

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2583/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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…

Sulemani Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Baroda vs. The Dy.CIT, Circle-5, Baroda

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 2264/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2017AY 2010-11

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…

The Kalol Urban Co.Op. Bank Ltd., Kalol vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Godhra

In the result, the appeal of the Assessee is dismissed

ITA 1496/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad09 Nov 2017AY 2004-05

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…

Shri Sharwan Kumar Sethi, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 502/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi09 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

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

…s that the assessee is not 2 ITA No. 502/Del./2016 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 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 09.11.2017. (H.S. Sidhu) Accountant Member Dated: 09.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (…

Globus Infocom Ltd., Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the appeals are dismissed, as indicated above

ITA 1880/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

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

…that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. 2 1880 & 1881/Del./2015 Therefore, the appeals of the assessee deserve 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, both the appeals are dismissed, as indicated above. Order is pronounced in the open court on 08.11.2017. (H.S. Sidhu) Accountant Member Dated: 08.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commis…

M/S. Hema Pesticides, Meerut vs. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the Appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine

ITA 1716/DEL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Nov 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y.: 2003-04

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Arun Kumar Yadav, Sr. DR

…of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its Appeal. Page 1 of 3 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…

Stone India Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-1, Kolkata

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

ITA 1237/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Nov 2017AY 2009-2010

…lf 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 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 07-11-2017. P.M. Jagtap S.S.Viswanethra Ra…

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

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

ITA 5301/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

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

…nment on record. It appears 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 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 07.11.2017. (H.S. Sidhu) Accountant Member Dated: 07.11.2017 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) Commissioner (…

M/S Triangle Property Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (OSD) O/O CIT-III, Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1240/BANG/2017[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Padmameenakshi, JCIT

….Ltd. non-prosecution, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. 3. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 03rd day of November, 2017. (A.K.Garodia) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore ; Dated :03rd November, 2017. Devdas* Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Mysuru. 4. CIT(A), Mysuru 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file.BY ORDE…

M/S Triangle Property Developers Pvt Ltd, Bangalore vs. Deputy Commissioner of Income Tax Circle-12(4), Bangalore

In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1239/BANG/2017[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore03 Nov 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri A.K.Garodia, Am & Shri George George K, Jm

For Appellant: --- None ---For Respondent: Smt.Padmameenakshi, JCIT

….Ltd. non-prosecution, by following the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT [(1997) 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd. [(1991) 38 ITD 320]. 3. In the result, the appeals by the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced on this 03rd day of November, 2017. (A.K.Garodia) JUDICIAL MEMBER Bangalore ; Dated :03rd November, 2017. Devdas* Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant 2. The Respondent. 3. The CIT, Mysuru. 4. CIT(A), Mysuru 5. DR, ITAT, Bangalore 6. Guard file.BY ORDE…

Promilla Rawla, Kolkata vs. PCIT-11, Kolkata

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

ITA 157/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2017AY 2011-2012
For Appellant: Promilla RawlaFor Respondent: The Principal CIT-11,Kolkata

…lf of assessee nor filed any application seeking adjournment. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting her case. In view of the above, following the decisions of 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 1 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 02-11-2017. Waseem Ahmed S.S.Viswaneth…

Trident Educational Trust, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-59(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1520/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Nov 2017AY 2010-2011
For Appellant: Trident Educational TrustFor Respondent: The ITO, Ward 5(2)(TDS)

…f 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 the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited 1 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 02-11-2017. Waseem Ahmed S.S.Viswanethra R…

Hemalata Bhaiya, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 3272/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan,Addl. CITFor Respondent: 02.11.2017
Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3272 & 1449/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Hemlata Bhaiya, No.68/4, 1st Floor, Godown Street, Business Ward VIII(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai PAN: AABPH4528H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan,Addl. CIT…

Hemalatha Bhaiya, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1449/CHNY/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai02 Nov 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri Duvvuru Rl Reddy

For Appellant: Shri N. Madhavan,Addl. CITFor Respondent: 02.11.2017
Section 250(6)

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘सी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI "ी ए. मोहन अलंकामणी, लेखा सद"य एवं "ी धु"वु" आर.एल रे"डी, "या"यक सद"य के सम" BEFORE SHRI A.MOHAN ALANKAMONY, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.3272 & 1449/Mds/2016 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2006-07 & 2007-08) Vs The Income Tax Officer, Smt. Hemlata Bhaiya, No.68/4, 1st Floor, Godown Street, Business Ward VIII(4), Chennai – 600 001. Chennai PAN: AABPH4528H (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant by : Shri N. Madhavan,Addl. CIT…

Ram Gopal Saraf, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 953/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -Vs.- Dcit, Cc-Xxvi, Kolkata [Pan : Aaach 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AAACH 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 952 & 953/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Ram Gopal Saraf -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AMAPS 8233 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 ORDER Per…

Ram Gopal Saraf, Kolkata vs. The DCIT CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 952/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -Vs.- Dcit, Cc-Xxvi, Kolkata [Pan : Aaach 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AAACH 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 952 & 953/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Ram Gopal Saraf -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AMAPS 8233 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 ORDER Per…

Hindustan Storage & Distribution Company Ltdn, Kolkata vs. The DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 951/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -Vs.- Dcit, Cc-Xxvi, Kolkata [Pan : Aaach 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AAACH 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 952 & 953/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Ram Gopal Saraf -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AMAPS 8233 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 ORDER Per…

Hindusta Storage & Distribution Company Ltd., Kolkata vs. The DCIT, CC-Xxvii, Kolkata

In the result, the appeals of the assessees are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 950/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Nov 2017AY 2006-2007

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Sri M.Balaganesh, Am ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -Vs.- Dcit, Cc-Xxvi, Kolkata [Pan : Aaach 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR
Section 153C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri A.T.Varkey, JM & Sri M.Balaganesh, AM ] I.T.A Nos. 950 & 951/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Hindustan Storage & Distribution Co. Ltd. -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AAACH 7211 B] (Appellant) (Respondent) I.T.A Nos. 952 & 953/Kol/2014 Assessment Years : 2006-07 & 2007-08 Ram Gopal Saraf -vs.- DCIT, CC-XXVI, Kolkata [PAN : AMAPS 8233 A] (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G. Mallikarjuna, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 24.10.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 01.11.2017 ORDER Per…

Shri Bharatkumar Kantilal Joshi, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-7(1)(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 2370/AHD/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad31 Oct 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & Shri Manish Boradआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 2370/Ahd/2016 िनधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2012-13 Bharatkumar Kantilal Joshi, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, A/204, Vishwa Residency, Nr. Ward-7(1)(3), Vishramnagar, Gurukul Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad-380054 Pan : Abmpj 6656 L [ अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) अपीलाथ" "त् यथ" "त् यथ"/ (Respondent) अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" "त् "त् यथ" यथ" Assessee By : None Revenue By : Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr Dr सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 26/10/2017 सुनवाई सुनवाई क" क" तारीख तारीख घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 31/10/2017 आदेश/O R D E R आदेश आदेश आदेश Per Manish Borad: This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Of The Learned Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Appeals)-7, Ahmedabad Dated 22.06.2016 For Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. In This Case, The Notice Of Hearing Was Sent By Registered Post With Acknowledgement Due To The Assessee On 03.10.2017 Fixing The Date Of Hearing On 26.10.2017. The Said Notice Has Been Duly Served Upon The Assessee On 12.10.2017 As Is Evident From The Postal Acknowledgment Slip Which Is Placed On Record. When The Case Was Called For Hearing On 26.10.2017, None Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee & Neither Any Adjournment Application Was Filed. This Shows That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Pursuing With His Appeal. Therefore, In View Of The Decision Of Hon'Ble Madhya Pradesh High Court In The Case Of Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. Cwt (1997) 223 Itr 480 (M.P.) & The Decision Of Hon'Ble Delhi Tribunal In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan Bharatkumar Kantilal Joshi Vs. Ito Ay : 2012-13 - 2 –

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, Sr DR

…e Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480 (M.P.) and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan Bharatkumar Kantilal Joshi vs. ITO AY : 2012-13 - 2 – India (Pvt.) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 3. The assessee may, if so advised, file an application before this Tribunal for restoration of his appeal and hearing on merits by showing reasonable cause for not appearing before the Tribunal on the date of hearing. The Bench, if so satisfied, may recall its order and restore the appeal…