How many judgments cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.?

2,267 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (38 ITD 320), spanning 2015 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 250, Section 147, Section 144, Section 142(1), Section 148, Section 143(3).

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 250 Section 147 Section 144 Section 142(1)Section 148 Section 143(3)Section 250(6)Section 69A

Issues it is cited on

section 25 india opportunity of being heard section 250 nfac interest total income document

Judgments citing CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd.

Sanjha Chulha, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-52(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 1380/KOL/2014[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata07 Apr 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 1380/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sanjha Chulha -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-52 (3) Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aayfs 0379 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Md.Ghyas Uddin, Jcit. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Md.Ghyas Uddin, JCIT. Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “SMC” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A No. 1380/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sanjha Chulha -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-52 (3) Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAYFS 0379 J] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Md.Ghyas Uddin, JCIT. Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 07.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 07.04.2017. ORDER This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 25.04.2014 of C.I.T.(A)-XXXIII, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2008-09. 2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on several occasions and was adjourned from time to time…

Mount Distilleries Ltd., Gangtok vs. ITO, Ward-2(4), Gangtok

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

ITA 191/KOL/2014[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata06 Apr 2017AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 191/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mount Distilleries Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-2 (4) Gangtok, Sikkim. Gangtok, Sikkim [Pan : Aahcm 0027 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit. Sr.Dr

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 191/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Mount Distilleries Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-2 (4) Gangtok, Sikkim. Gangtok, Sikkim [PAN : AAHCM 0027 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT. Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 06.04.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 06.04.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 31.10.2013 of C.I.T.(A)-Jalpaiguri relating to A.Y.2010-11. 2. This appeal was…

M/S. Proto Developers & Technologies Limited, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2990/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

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

ADIT(It)-3(1), Kolkata vs. White Industries Australia Ltd., Kolkata

In the result the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 507/KOL/2010[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1992-93

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 1992-93

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.N.B.Som, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253

…ITA No.507,477&478/Kol/2010-M/s. White Inds. Australia Ltd. A.Y.1992-93 1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, BENCH "C", KOLKATA [Before Hon'ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Hon'ble Sri M.Balaganesh, AM] Assessment Year : 1992-93 A.D.I.T., (International Taxation)-3(1) -vs M/s. White Industries Australia.Ltd., Kolkata Kolkata (PAN AAACW 2447 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) ITA Nos.477 & 478/Kol/2010 Assessment Year : 1992-93 M/s. White Industries Australia.Ltd., A.D.I.T., (International Taxation)-3(1) Kolkata Kolkata (PAN AAACW 2447 C) (Appellant) (Respondent) For the Department: Shri.N.B.Som, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR For…

M/S. White Industries Australia Ltd., Kolkata vs. Asst. DIT, International Taxation - 3(1), Kolkata

In the result the appeals by the Assessee are dismissed, while the appeal by the Revenue is partly allowed

ITA 477/KOL/2010[1992-93]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata05 Apr 2017AY 1992-93

Bench: Hon'Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Hon'Ble Sri M.Balaganesh, Am] Assessment Year : 1992-93

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri.N.B.Som, Addl.CIT, Sr.DR

Section 115ASection 142(1)Section 143(3)Section 147Section 148Section 253

Sh. Prashant Shrivastava, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2824/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Apr 2017AY 2009-10

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr. DR

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

Manak Devi Barmecha, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2140/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai03 Apr 2017AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

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

…son has appeared on behalf of the assessee. In the circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee :- 2 -: 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 Monday, the 3rd day of April, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated:3rd April, 2017 KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"षत/Copy to:…

Debendra Coldstorage Private Limited, Hooghly vs. ACIT, Circle-1, Hooghly

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1419/KOL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata31 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 144Section 40Section 43B

…en held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B.N. Bhattacharjee 118 ITR 461 that preferring appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal but effectively pursuing it. This principle has also been followed in CIT vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd. 38 ITD 320(Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480(MP). Law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. I.T.A. No. 1419/KOL./2016 Assessment year: 2008-2009 Page 3 of 4 The appellant has not availed of the several opportunities/ adjournments granted to it for being heard. Hence, I have no option but to de…

B. P. Agarwal (HUF), Kolkata vs. The ITO, WD-43(4), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1414/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata29 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

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 March 29, 2017. (P.M. Ja…

Sh. Ashok Kumar Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3826/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra & Shri K. N. Charyassessment Year : 2009-10 Ashok Kumar Arora, Ito, Ward- 20(3), Praveen Aggarwal & Co., New Delhi. Flat No.251, Vs. Dda Commercial Complex, Jhandewalan Extn., New Delhi. Pan : Adppa 8870 N (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri K.V.S.R. Krishna, CAFor Respondent: Shri S. K. Jain, Sr.DR

Section 144

…unserved with the comments “Left without address” of the Postal Authorities on the envelope. He, therefore, dismissed the appeal of the assessee for non-prosecution applying the decision of ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Being aggrieved, the assessee in appeal before the Tribunal and has, inter-alia, taken a ground that no reasonable opportunity had been provided to him. 3. At the time of hearing, ld. counsel for the assessee filed an affidavit of assessee, wherein, it is averred as under :- “I, Ashok Kumar Arora S/o Late Sh. Kishan Chand R/o 1327, A/8…

Md. Nausad Alam, Uttar Dinajpur vs. ITO, Ward-1, Raiganj, Uttar Dinajpur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1489/KOL/2016[2011-12]Status: HeardITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

Bmc Electroplast Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1782/KOL/2014[2005-06]Status: PendingITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap

M/S. Ram Agro Chemicals Industries Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3102/CHNY/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: 27.03.2017

Section 250(6)

…ceived. 3. In view of the above, I am 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), I dismiss the appeal in limine. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th March, 2017. (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (A. Mohan Alankamony) लेखा सद"य/Accountant Member चे"नई/Chennai, "द…

Flamagas India Private Limited, Chennai vs. DCIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1354/CHNY/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai27 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: 27.03.2017

Section 250(6)

…02.2017. 3. In view of the above, I am 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), I dismiss the appeal in limine. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 27th March, 2017. (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (A. Mohan Alankamony) लेखा सद"य/Accountant Member चे"नई/Chennai, "द…

Mehar - E - Nimroz, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

The appeal of the assessee stands dismissed for non prosecution

ITA 1815/DEL/2012[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R. S. Syal & Smt Suchitra Kamblei.T.A .No.-1815/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2007-08)

…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 2 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. The order is pronounced in the open court on 27th Day of March, 2017. (R.S. SYAL) J…

Narendra Kumar Chaturvedi, Hindaun City vs. ITO, Sawai Madhopur

In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 170/JPR/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur24 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri O.P. Bhateja (Addl. CIT)

…ime, however the matter has not been represented before the Bench and it seems that no useful purposes would be served in adjourning the matter any further. Following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and also 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 adjournment application is rejected and the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine, with a liberty to seek a recall on demonstrating reasonable cause. In the result the appeal filed by the assessee is…

Sri.Venugopal V, Cherthala vs. The ITO, Alappuzha

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

ITA 239/COCH/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin23 Mar 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: S/Shri Abraham P George, Am & George George K, Jm Shri Venugopal V Vs The Income Tax Officer Puthuparambil Cmc-1 Ward 3 Cherthala 688 524 Alappuzha ( Appellant) (Respondent)

…interested in pursuing the appeal, and no useful purpose would be served by adjourning the hearing. Considering these facts and keeping in mind the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the ITAT Rules, as were 1 considered in the case of Multiplan India, reported in 38 ITD 320 (Del) and in view of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar, reported in 223 ITR 480, we dismiss the appeal in limine. However, if the assessee on a later stage gives explanation in regard to its non- appearance before the Tribunal on the date of hearing before the Tribunal by filing a Misce…

Assistance to Indian Ministries Trust, Coimbatore vs. ACIT, Coimbatore

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2088/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai23 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri Supriyo Pal, JCITFor Respondent: 23.03.2017

…ssee. 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. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 23rd March, 2017. (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (A. Mohan Alankamony) लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member चे"नई/Chenn…

Kundan Rice Mills Ltd., Delhi vs. ACIT, Karnal

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

ITA 33/DEL/2015[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Mar 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Ms Suchitra Kamble, Jm Co No.33/Del/2015 (Ita No.2046/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M.G. Electronics Ltd., Vs. Dcit, 3, Community Centre, Circle-6(1), East Of Kailash, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aadcm9970H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : E : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM AND MS SUCHITRA KAMBLE, JM CO No.33/Del/2015 (ITA No.2046/Del/2014) Assessment Year : 2009-10 M.G. Electronics Ltd., Vs. DCIT, 3, Community Centre, Circle-6(1), East of Kailash, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AADCM9970H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 23.03.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 23.03.2017 ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 08.01.2014 in relation to the Assessment Year 2009…

Anmol Textiles, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-41, Kolkata

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

ITA 425/KOL/2014[2099-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2099-2010

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.425/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2009-2010) Anmol Textiles, Vs. Dcit, Circle-41, Kolkata 2, Dilarjung Road, Cossipore, Kolkata-700002 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Aadfn 4059 K .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Md. Ghyas Uddin,Jcit,Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 22/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 22/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-10, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xix, Kolkata, In Appeal No.376/Cit(A)-Xix/Circle-4-41/Kol/12-13, Dated 19.12.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Ao U/S.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (Hereinafter Referred To As The ‘Act’), Dated 09.11.2011. 2. This Appeal Came For Hearing Today I.E. On 22.03.2017. The Notice In This Appeal Sent To The Assessee For Hearing By Registered Post With Ad 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. Neither An Adjournment Petition Was Filed In Respect Of The Above Assessee, It Means That Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Appeal. Hence, 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:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin,JCIT,DR

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…