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.

Sri Prafulla Kumar Najir, Purba Medinipur vs. I.T.O WD - 4, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

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

ITA 2227/KOL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata22 Mar 2017AY 2008-09
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Sallong Yaden, Addl.CIT
Section 144

…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…

Telerex Etech Pvt. Ltd., Gurgaon vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3166/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: PendingITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, 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…

Ms. Kavita Gupta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 1211/DEL/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Sh. R. K. Panda & Smt. Beena A. Pillaikavita Gupta Ito, Ward-39(1), 2083, Gali Mahabir, New Delhi Vs. Teliwara, Delhi Pan : Aajpg2993F (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr.DR
Section 147Section 253

…um of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice. (2) The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall not by itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted.” 4. The ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had occasion to consider the aspect of admissibility of appeal for hearing by observing as under :- “4. A judicial body has certain inherent powers. Decisions are taken for the purpose of proper and expeditious disposal of the appeals in present climate of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of mind…

Smt. Veermati, Baghpat vs. ITO, Uttar Pradesh

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6406/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Mar 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

…10. 2. None appeared in the present case in spite of valid service of notice and therefore keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963, as were considered in the Page 1 of 3 case of CIT vs. Multi Plan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), the assessee’s appeal is dismissed. 3. I also rely upon the decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojira Holker vs. CW2 220 ITR 480 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhatta Chargee and Anr. In ITA 118 page 461, relevant pages 477 and 478 in this regard. 4. Respectfully following the a…

Biswarup Chatterjee, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-52(10, Kolkata

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

ITA 410/KOL/2015[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Mar 2017AY 2008-2009

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.410/Kol/2015 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year :2008-2009) Biswarup Chatterjee, Vs. Ito, Ward-52(1), 189/6, B.B.Chatterjee Road, Aayakar Bhawan, Dakshin, Kolkata-700042 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-700068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Actpc 0571 H .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Prabal Choudhury,Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 14/03/2017 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 14/03/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To Assessment Year 2008-09, Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Kolkata Dated 05.02.2015. 2. This Appeal Came For Hearing Today I.E. On 14.03.2017. The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee For Hearing By Registered Post With Ad On 01.07.2016, 26.07.2016 & 21.11.2016 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. Though Applications Dated 15.12.2016 & 10.02.2017 Have Been Filed By The Assessee Seeking Adjournments, On Which The Bench Adjourned The Cases To 10.02.2017 & 14.03.2017 Respectively, Still None Appeared 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 2 Biswarup Chatterjee Assessee Is Liable To Be Dismissed For Non Prosecution. For This View, We

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabal Choudhury,JCIT

…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…

M/S Kerala State Mineral Development Corporation Ltd, Trivandrum vs. The DCIT, Trivandrum

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

ITA 302/COCH/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin14 Mar 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri George George. K.] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Coch/2015 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2011-2012. M/S.Kerala State Mineral The Deputy Commissioner Of Development Corporation Income Tax, Limited, Vs. Circle 1(2) T.C. 28/118, Nirmalaya Thiruvananthapuram. Sreekandeswaram, Thiruvananthapuram. [Pan Aaack 9746N]

For Respondent: Shri. Shanthom Box, CIT, DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL : COCHIN BENCH: KOCHI. [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE. K., JUDICIAL MEMBER] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No.302/Coch/2015 िनधा"रण वष" /Assessment year : 2011-2012. M/s.Kerala State Mineral The Deputy Commissioner of Development Corporation Income Tax, Limited, Vs. Circle 1(2) T.C. 28/118, Nirmalaya Thiruvananthapuram. Sreekandeswaram, Thiruvananthapuram. [PAN AAACK 9746N] (अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ" अपीलाथ"/Appellant) अपीलाथ" (ू"यथ" ू"यथ" ू"यथ"/Respondent) ू"यथ" : अपीलाथ" क" ओर से/ Appellant by None ू"यथ" क" ओर से /Respondent by : Shri. Shanthom Box,…

Amaravathi Sri Venkatesa Paper Mills Ltd., Tiruppur vs. DCIT, Tiruppur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3113/CHNY/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai14 Mar 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.Mohan Alankamony & Shri G. Pavan Kumar

For Appellant: Shri Shiva Srinivas, JCITFor Respondent: 14.03.2017

…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. 4. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on the 14th March, 2017. (जी. पवन कुमार) (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (G. Pavan Kumar) (A. Mohan Alankamony) "याियक सद"य…

Bhagwan Singh Poswal, Jaipur vs. ITO, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 322/JPR/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur09 Mar 2017AY 2010-11
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri P.P. Meena (JCIT)
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)

…he assessee nor filed any application for adjournment. Under these facts, it is presumed that the assessee is not interested to prosecute the appeal. Respectfully following the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court on 09 .03.2017. ( HkkxpUn ½ ( dqy Hkkjr) ( BHAGCHAND) ( KUL BHARAT ) ys[…

Navneet Saraf, Jaipur vs. ACIT, Jaipur

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 530/JPR/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: The Time Of Appeal.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.A. Verma (Addl. JCIT)
Section 54F

…r on behalf of the assessee. In view, of the facts narrated herein above it appeared that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeals. Respectfully following the judgments of Hon’ble Delhi High Court in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, 223 ITR 480 (MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution 3. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 08/03/2017. ( dqy Hkkjr) ¼foØe flag ;kno½ (VIKRAM SINGH YADAV) ( KUL B…

Bandana Agarwal, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-31(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1865/KOL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2012-13

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 08, 2017. (P.M. Ja…

ITO, WD - 41(4), Nadia vs. Narayan Chandra Basak, Nadia

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 68/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Mar 2017AY 2010-2011

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 Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on March 08, 2017. SD/- Kolk…

M/S. Hbn Insurance Agencies (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 3783/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi08 Mar 2017AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri O.P. Kant

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. A.K. Saroha, CIT(DR)

…ssee. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeals. 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…

Albatross Parcel Express Pvt Ltd, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1666/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Mar 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri B.P. Jain

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Bedobina Chaudhari, Sr. DR

…he A.Y. 2010-11. 2. None appeared in the present case in spite of valid service of notice and therefore keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of Income Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules 1963, as were considered in the case of CIT vs. Multi plan India Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), the assessee’s Page 1 of 3 appeal is dismissed. 3. I also rely upon the decision of Hon’ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojira Holker vs. CW2 220 ITR 480 and the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Bhatta Chargee and Anr. In ITA 118 page 461, relevant pages 477 and 478 in this regard. 4. Respectfully fo…

Smt. S.M. Contractor, Hubli vs. ITO, Bangalore

In the result, the appeal is dismissed in limine

ITA 1158/BANG/2016[2001-02]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore06 Mar 2017AY 2001-02

Bench: Shri George George K. & Shri S. Jayaramanassessment Year : 2001-02

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. M. K. Biju, JCIT

…the totality of the facts, we are, thus, left with no option but to infer that that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, following the ratio of decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del) and considering the ratio of the Hon’ble Supreme Court and various Hon’ble High Courts in such a situation; we treat the appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the appeal in limine for want of prosecution of the case. The assessee is, however, at liberty to move the Tribunal showing out sufficient reason(s) and/or reasonable cause for failure to p…

Damodar Ropeways & Construction Co. Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. CIT(A), Central - II, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 505/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Mar 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri M. Balaganesh, Am & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n e `For Respondent: Shri S. S. Alam, JCIT, Sr. DR

…e time of hearing or no communication has been made by the assessee in respect of any adjournment. Hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. Order is pronounced in the open court. sd/- (M. Balaganesh) (Partha Sarathi Chaudhury,) Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated : 2nd March, 2017 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) 2 Damodar Repeways & Construction Co. P. Ltd.. Copy of the order forwarded to: APPELLANT – Damodar Repeways & Construction Co.…

Manisha Nath, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-1(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 663/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata01 Mar 2017AY 2009-2010

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 663/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Manisha Nath -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Ahhpn 8993 M] (Respondent) (Appellant)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 663/Kol/2014 Assessment Year : 2009-10 Manisha Nath -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1 (1), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AHHPN 8993 M] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri R.S.Biswas, CIT Date of Hearing : 01.03.2017. Date of Pronouncement : 01.03.2017. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 22.01.2013 of C.I.T.(A)-XXIV, Kolkata relating to A.Y.2009-10. 2. This case was listed for hearing on 18.01.2017. But on tha…

Jayanta Ghosh, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-33(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 967/KOL/2016[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2005-2006

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 February 28, 2017. (P.M.…

Jitendra Kr. Rampuria, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-35(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 465/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 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 February 28, 2017. (P.M.…

Vijay Kumar Prahladka, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-42(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1255/KOL/2014[2006-2007]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Feb 2017AY 2006-2007

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 February 28, 2017. (P.M.…

Ashok M Jain, Navi Mumbai vs. ACIT 22(3), Navi Mumbai

The appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 601/MUM/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri G.S. Pannu, Am & Shri Ravish Sood, Jm

For Appellant: Shri V.D. ParmarFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar Yadav
Section 143(2)Section 271(1)(C)Section 271(1)(c)

…the appeal the Ld. Authorized representative (for short ‘A.R’) conceded that though the CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal of the assessee for want of prosecution by relying on the order of the ITAT, Delhi in the case of : CIT Vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), but as he had thereafter proceeded with and also dismissed the appeal on merits, therefore in the backdrop of the said factual position the assailing of the dismissal of the appeal by the CIT(A) on the said count, thus did not survive. That in the light of the concession of the Ld. A.R the Ground of appeal No. 1 is thus dismissed as havin…