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 367,514 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. Global Healthline Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 6844/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Sept 2017AY 2011-12

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

…ssee is not serious in ITA No. 6844/Del./2014 2 pursuing its appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from 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 of the assessee is dismissed, as indicated above. Order is pronounced in the open court on 06.09.2017. (H.S. Sidhu) Accountant Member Dated: 06.09.2007 *aks* Copy of order forwarded to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3)…

M/S. Gupta Enterprises, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

Appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the

ITA 3873/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi31 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain & Shri Kuldip Singh

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Arun Kumar Yadav, Senior DR

…erested in prosecution of the present appeal. 3. Keeping in view the legal position that mere issuance of notice does not amount to admission of appeal and this issue has been squarely decided by Hon’ble ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.), the present appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution with liberty to the assessee to file an application to recall the order subject to demonstrate that he was prevented by sufficient cause from putting his appearance at the time of hearing. 4. In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted for want of pro…

Ramesh N. Kher, Anand vs. The Income Tax Officer, Anand

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 735/AHD/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad29 Aug 2017AY 2008-09
Section 143(3)

…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. Pronounced in the open court today on the 29th day of August, 2017. Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Membe…

V.Sugnana Kumari Deo, Ganjam vs. DCIT, Berhampur

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 437/CTK/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2010-2011

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

…re inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal which is hereby dismissed for non-prosecution following the order Asse ssment Year : 20 10- 201 1 of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del ). 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /08/2017. sd/- (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 29 /08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant : V.Sugnana Kumari deo, Nirmaljhara, Khalikote, Ganjam 2. The…

Bikash Infra and Marketing Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. JCIT, Range-2, Bhubaneswar

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

ITA 182/CTK/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack24 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri N.S.Saini, Am & Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.182/Ctk/2016 (धनधाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2011-2012) Bikash Infra & Marketing (P) Vs. Jcit Range-2, Ltd., N-3-256, Irc Village, Bhubaneswar Nayapalli, Bhubaneswar-751015 स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Aadcb 8224 H (अपीलाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) .. निर्ााररती की ओर से /Assessee By : None राजस्व की ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Kunal Singh, Citdr सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Hearing : 24/08/2017 घोषणा की तारीख/Date Of Pronouncement 28/08/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Shri Pavan Kumar Gadale, Jm: The Assessee Has Filed An Appeal Against The Order Of Cit(A)-1, Bhubaneswar, Passed In Itappeal No.0394/2015-16, Dated 18.2.2016, U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act. 2. This Appeal Came For Hearing Today I.E. On 24.08.2017. The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee For Hearing By Registered Post With Ad On 21.07.2017 To The Address Given By The Assessee In Column No.10 Of Form No.36. However No One Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Date Of Hearing. It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Appeal. Hence, The Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non Prosecution. For This View, We Find Support From The Following Decisions :- “1. In The Case Of Cit Vs B.N.Bhattachrgee & Another, Reported In 118 Itr 461 [Relevant Pages 477 & 478] Wherein Their Lordships Have Held That: “The Appeal Does Not Mean Merely Filing Of The Appeal But Effectively Pursuing It.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CITDR
Section 143(3)

…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…

Shri Rameshbhai Nanubhai Patel, Bhavnagar vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1), Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2428/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad23 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

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

For Respondent: Shri Prasoon Kabra, 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 23/08/2017 एन.के. "ब"लैया महावीर "साद (लेखा सद"य) ("या"यक सद"य) ( N.K.…

Bharat B., Chokhani, Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 624/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai22 Aug 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

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

…behalf of assessee nor any :- 2 -: adjournment request was 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) (Del), I dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. 2. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on Tuesday, the 22nd August of 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated:22nd August, 2017 KV आदेश क" ""त"…

Vijayakumar (L/R of P.N.Palanivel), Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1115/CHNY/2017[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai21 Aug 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

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

…आयकर अपील"य अ"धकरण, ‘बी’ "यायपीठ, चे"नई IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘B’ (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI "ी अ"ाहम पी. जॉज", लेखा सद"य के सम" । [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 1115/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2006-2007 P.P. Vijayakumar Vs. The Income Tax Officer, (Legal Representative P.N. NCW 5(4) Palanivel), Chennai. 9, Natesan Nagar, Allapakkam, Chennai 600 116. [PAN AASPV 5456D] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. B. Sagadevan, IRS, JCIT. ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date of Hearing : 21…

Venketshwara Tex -O-Fab, Pvt.Ltd., Surat vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-4(4), Surat

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2609/AHD/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad17 Aug 2017AY 2004-05
Section 143(3)Section 147Section 68

…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. Pronounced in the open court today on the 17th day of August, 2017. Mahavir Prasad Pramod Kumar (Judicial Member…

Shri Harivadan Nand Lal Ptel, Ahmedabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1850/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Respondent: Shri Vimal I Mehta, Sr. D.R
Section 144

…of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been filed. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case. Therefore, following order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we 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 16/08/2017 एन.के. "ब"लैया महावीर "साद (लेखा सद"य) ("या"यक सद"य) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 16/08/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/C…

Shri Alwahaj I. Bora, Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(2), Baroda

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1739/AHD/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad16 Aug 2017AY 2011-12

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

For Appellant: --None--For Respondent: Shri Vimal I Mehta, Sr. D.R
Section 143(3)

…of the assessee nor any application for adjournment has been filed. From this, it is reasonable to infer that the assessee is not serious to pursue its case. Therefore, following order of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), we 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 16/08/2017 एन.के. "ब"लैया महावीर "साद (लेखा सद"य) ("या"यक सद"य) ( MAHAVIR PRASAD ) JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 16/08/2017 Priti Yadav, Sr.PS आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/C…

Monika, Sundergarh vs. CIT(Exemptions), Hyderabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 58/CTK/2016[]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack10 Aug 2017

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadalecit (Exemptions), 5Th Floor, Monika, At: Jalda, ‘A’ Block, Vs. Po; Jalda C. Rourkela. Posnett Bhawan, Tilak Road, Ramkoti, Hyderabad. Pan/Gir No.Aadam 8112 F (Appellant) .. ( Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Kunal Singh, CIT DR

…on record by the assessee. Under the above circumstances, we presume that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. While taking this view, we derive the support from the decision of the ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 2 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 10 /08/2017. (Pavan Kumar Gadale) (N.S Saini) JUDICIALMEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated /08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The Appellant : Monika, At: Jalda, ‘A’ Block, PO; Jalda C. Rourkela 2. The Respondent. CIT…

Aes Orissa Distribution Pvt. Ltd., Bhubaneswar vs. ACIT, Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 362/CTK/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack09 Aug 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: S/Shri N.S Saini & Pavan Kumar Gadaleassessment Year : 2009-2010

For Appellant: Shri B.K.Mohapatra, ARFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

…the assessee to appear before him on 24.11.2014, 15.12.2014, 24.12.2014, 12.2.2015, 30.3.2015, 22.4.2015 and 25.5.2015 and hence, he has dismissed the appeal of the assessee following the decision of the Delhi in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P)Ltd., 38 ITD 320 and other judicial pronouncements. We find force in the contention of the learned counsel for the assessee that the CIT(A) has simply dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution qua the assessee, without assigning any reason. The order of the learned CIT(A) being a non-speaking order, the same is set aside and the matter is restored back to his f…

Sri Ajoy Kumar Halder, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-2(2), Midnapore, Paschim Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 469/KOL/2015[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2017AY 2011-2012

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

…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 August 07, 2017. (P.M. J…

Binod Kumar Agarwal, Paschim Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-2(1), Paschim Midnapur, Midnapore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 293/KOL/2015[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2017AY 2004-2005

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 271(1)(c)

…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 August 07, 2017. (P.M. J…

Sri Arindam Chandra, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-53(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 249/KOL/2015[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Aug 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

…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 August 07, 2017. (P.M. J…

Shri Bhadrakali Patotsav Dharmik Trust, Gandhinagar vs. The CIT, Gandhinagar, Ahmedabad

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2624/AHD/2013[-]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad02 Aug 2017

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

For Respondent: Ms. Vasundhara Upmanya, CIT 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 02/08/2017 एन.के. "ब"लैया महावीर "साद (लेखा सद"य) ("या"यक सद"य) ( N.K.…

Ajit Padhee, Bhubaneswar vs. ITO, Ward-2(3), Bhubaneswar

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 144/CTK/2017[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack02 Aug 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri N.S Sainiassessment Year :2010-2011

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

…nt was filed. From the above, it is inferred that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal before the Tribunal. Following the Asse ssment Year :20 10- 201 1 decision of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) ltd., 38 ITD 320, I dismiss the appeal for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 02/08/2017. (N.S Saini) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Cuttack; Dated 02 /08/2017 B.K.Parida, SPS Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. The appellant : Ajit Padhee At: Plot No.313 Kharavela Nagar, Bhubaneswar. 2. Th…

Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1334/CHNY/2017[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2017AY 2012-2013

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1330, 1331, 1332, 1333 & 1334/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Non Corporate Circle 2, No.43, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aasps4748M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 01.08.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 24.03.2017 In Ita Nos.180,179,178,177 & 174/Cit(A)-2/2015- 16 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 Passed U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 250(6)

…ived. 3. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed before this Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby directed to dispatch this order to the assessee within a period of 7 days from this day. 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…

Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 1333/CHNY/2017[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai01 Aug 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri A. Mohan Alankamonyआयकरअपीलसं./I.T.A.Nos.1330, 1331, 1332, 1333 & 1334/Mds/2017 ("नधा"रणवष" / Assessment Years: 2007-08, 2008-09, 2009-10, 2010-11 & 2012-13) Vs The Dcit, Shri Sivasundara Nadar Sivaperumal, Non Corporate Circle 2, No.43, Pondy Bazaar, T.Nagar, Chennai. Chennai – 600 017. Pan: Aasps4748M (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) : None अपीलाथ"क"ओरसे/ Appellant By : Shri Ar.V. Sreenivasan, Jcit ""यथ"क"ओरसे/Respondent By : 01.08.2017 सुनवाईक"तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 01.08.2017 घोषणाक"तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement आदेश / O R D E R Per A. Mohan Alankamony, Am: These Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-2, Chennai Dated 24.03.2017 In Ita Nos.180,179,178,177 & 174/Cit(A)-2/2015- 16 For The Assessment Years 2007-08 To 2010-11 & 2012-13 Passed U/S.250(6) R.W.S. 271B Of The Act.

For Appellant: Shri AR.V. Sreenivasan, JCITFor Respondent: 01.08.2017
Section 250(6)

…ived. 3. In view of the above, we are of the considered opinion that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal filed before this Tribunal. Hence, following the decision of the Delhi Bench in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India P. Ltd., reported in 38 ITD 320 and the judgment of the Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), we dismiss the appeal in limine. The Registry is hereby directed to dispatch this order to the assessee within a period of 7 days from this day. 4. In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open co…