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 367,368 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.

Pavani Anil Bakeri, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-9(3), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1837/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1837/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Smt. Pavani Anil Bakeri, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, “Sanskrut”, 1St Floor, Old High Ward-9 (3), Court Road, Ashram Road, Ahmedabad Ahmedabad Pan : Aenpb 5727 Q अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : None Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya:

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr DR

…f Hon'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court Smt. Pavani Anil Bakeri vs. ITO AY 2009-10 2 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 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 her 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…

Shri Ajay Mahendrabhai Shah, Ahmedabad vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(2), Ahmedabad

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

ITA 1770/AHD/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri N.K. Billaiya & Shri Mahavir Prasadआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 1770/Ahd/2014 "नधा"रण वष"/Assessment Year: 2009-10 Shri Ajay Mahendrabhai Shah, Vs. Income-Tax Officer, 502, Panchkuva, Ahmedabad-1 Ward-3 (2), Pan : Adkps 5851 J Ahmedabad अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee(S) By : None Revenue By : Shri James Kurian, Sr Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 11/05/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 11/05/2017 आदेश/O R D E R Per N.K. Billaiya:

For Respondent: Shri James Kurian, Sr DR

…on'ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) 223 ITR 480 Ajaybhai Mahendrabhai Shah vs. ITO AY 2009-10 2 (M.P.) and the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan 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…

Sh. Shiv Kumar Garg (Prop. of Lee Bathe), New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3872/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi11 May 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y.: 2009-10

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

…w of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of his Appeal. 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…

Kiran Kohli Dheeraj Kohli, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same in limine

ITA 6618/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Delhi08 May 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year : 2005-06

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Date of Hearing
Section 271(1)(C)

…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 reference 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 inheren…

ACIT, Cir-2, Burdwan vs. Dilip Saha, Burdwan

In the result, the appeal of revenue in ITA No

ITA 582/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 May 2017AY 2010-2011
Section 143(2)Section 194CSection 40

…ehalf of the assessee nor any adjournment petition was filed. It appears that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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. 13. The appeals of assessee in ITA No. 622/Kol/2014 for the A.Y 2010-11 is dismissed for non prosecution. 14. In the result, the appeal of revenue…

Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4122/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2017AY 2010-11

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. 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 these appeals 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 pur…

Saviour Builders Pvt. Ltd., Noida vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, both the Appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 4121/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. 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 these appeals 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 pur…

Mrs. Sunita Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3894/DEL/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi04 May 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishia.Y.: 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. DR

…of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of her Appeal. 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…

Mehul Overseas Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O., Ward-12(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 1913/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 May 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri N.V.Vasudevan & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Year :2009-10

…ts 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 ITA No.1913/Kol/2014 A.Y. 2009-10 Mehul Overseas Pvt. Ltd. Vs. ITO Wd-12(2) 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 pap…

Sh. Chander Prakash Kholi, Faridabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6342/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year. 2010-11

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

…herefore the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 3. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), I dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to Page 1 of 2 Chander Prakash Kholi vs. ITO move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc.…

M/S. Comnet Informatics Private Limited, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 3213/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year : 2007-08

For Appellant: Department byFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobani, Sr.DRR

…ismissed. 3. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were Page 1 of 2 Comnet Informatics Private Ltd. vs ITO considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), I dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then this order shall be recalled. 4. This…

Vaneeta Narang, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 343/DEL/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Sainiassessment Year. 2012-13

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

…erefore the appeal of the assessee is liable to be dismissed. 3. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), I dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the Page 1 of 2 Vaneeta Naranag vs. ITO reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then…

M/S. Shyam Memorial Welfare Society, New Delhi vs. DCIT, Sonepat

In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed

ITA 4093/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 May 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri H.S.Sidhu & Shri Prashant Maharishishyam Memorial Welfare Society, Vs. Dcit, C/O. Sh. Us Aggarwal, Advoate, Flat Circle Sonepat, Sonepat No. 505, Maitri Apptts, Sector-0, Opp, Metro Pillar No. 411, Rohini, New Delhi Pan:Aadas3814Q (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. NK Bansal, Sr. DR

…s made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper Page 2 of 2 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 adjournment was received. There was no communication or information as to why revenue choose to remain absent on that date. The Tribunal on the basis of inherent pow…

K.Gangadharan, Nagapattinam vs. ACIT, Thanjavur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 545/CHNY/2017[2001-2002]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Apr 2017AY 2001-2002

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT

…son has appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the :- 2 -: assessee is not interested in prosecuting the case. 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. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 2. Order pronounced on Thursday, the 27th day of April, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated: 27th April, 2017. KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Cop…

Alok Bhatnagar, Meerut vs. DCIT, Meerut

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 262/DEL/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2013-14

Bench: Shri B.P. Jainassessment Year 2013-14 Alok Bhatnagar, Vs. Dcit, Central Circle, Cit(A)-111, Samrat Palace, Meerut. Garh Road, Meerut. Pan: Acxpb 9678A (Appellant) (Respondent) Revenue By : Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri, Sr.D.R. Assessee(S) By : S/Shri K. Sampat & V. Raja Kumar, Adv. सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 24/04/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख /Date Of Pronouncement: 27/04/2017 Order This Appeal Of The Assessee Arises From The Order Of Learned Cit(A)-Iv, Kanpur, Vide Order Dated 28.11.2016 For The Assessment Year 2013-14. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal As Under: “The Ld. Cit(A) Has Erred In Treating The Amount Of Rs.10,95,000/- As Appellants Income & Added To His Total Income.”

For Respondent: Ms. Bedobani Chaudhuri

…ate Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, reported in 223 ITR 480, decision of Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High court in the case of New Diwan Oils 2 Mills vs. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495 and decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320. Though, he has dismissed the grounds of the assessee on merit as well. 4. I have heard the rival contentions and perused the facts of the case. There is no dispute to the fact that the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order ex- parte and it was argued that the assessee has placed the material before the ld. CIT(A) who has not examined the same. Firstly…

M/S. Shah Publication (P) Ltd., Muzaffarnagar vs. ACIT, Muzaffarnagar

ITA 591/DEL/2010[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Apr 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri Anadee Nath Misshraay: 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Niraj Bansal, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…Shri Niraj Bansal,Sr. DR appeared for the revenue. Page 1 of 2 3. Considering the facts and keeping in view the provisions of Order V Rule 19A of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, as were considered in the cases of CIT vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del); and Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss this appeal filed by the assessee. The assessee, if so advised, shall be free to move this Tribunal praying for recalling of this order and explaining the reasons for non-compliance etc. and if the Bench is so satisfied about the reasons etc., then this order may be recalled. 4. This…

P.Thanga Nadar, Nagercoil vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 223/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…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. Nos.222 & 223/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2008-09 & 2008-09 Shri. P. Thanga Nadar Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.12, P.S. Nadar & Sons, Income Tax, Court Road, Central Circle 1, Nagercoil. Madurai [PAN ACMPT 3069L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. K. Ravi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT. : 25-04-2017…

P.Thanga Nadar, Nagercoil vs. DCIT, Madurai

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are allowed for

ITA 222/CHNY/2017[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. K. Ravi, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT
Section 133ASection 143(3)

…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. Nos.222 & 223/Mds/2017 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2008-09 & 2008-09 Shri. P. Thanga Nadar Vs. The Deputy Commissioner of No.12, P.S. Nadar & Sons, Income Tax, Court Road, Central Circle 1, Nagercoil. Madurai [PAN ACMPT 3069L] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent) अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by : Shri. K. Ravi, Advocate ""यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. M. Murali Mohan, JCIT. : 25-04-2017…

R.Rangasamy, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3319/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Appellant: Shri. Murali Mohan, JCIT

…on has appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the case. Following the decision of the :- 2 -: 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 on Wednesday, the 26th day of April, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated:26th April, 2017 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Co…

Sri. Krishna Prasad Padmanabhan, Bangalore vs. Pr. CIT - 2, Bangalore

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1140/BANG/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore26 Apr 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Neera Malhotra, CIT-DR

…aring. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the ITA.1140/Bang/2016 Page - 2 assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and that of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution. 03. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on the 26th day of April, 2017. (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER…