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.

S & S Goods Private Limited, Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3380/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Feb 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri A. Mohan Alankamony

For Appellant: Shri B. Naveen Kumar, JCIT

…ved. 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 TukojiraoHolkar (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 7th February, 2017. (ए. मोहन अलंकामणी) (A. Mohan Alankamony) लेखा सद"य / Accountant Member चे"नई/Che…

Mohd. Adil, Shamli vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 5447/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-5446 & 5447/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Mohd. Adil, Vs Ito, Village Garhi Daulatpur, Ward-1(4), Kandhla Distt., Shamli-247776. New Delhi. Pan-Bldpa1908G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ese circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeals and the appeals are dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (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. The said order was pronounced on the dat…

Mohd. Adil, Shamli vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 5446/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-5446 & 5447/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Mohd. Adil, Vs Ito, Village Garhi Daulatpur, Ward-1(4), Kandhla Distt., Shamli-247776. New Delhi. Pan-Bldpa1908G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…ese circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeals and the appeals are dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (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. The said order was pronounced on the dat…

Smt. Kshama Goyal, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1988/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-1988/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2011-12) Kshama Goyal, Vs ITO, C/o-MNRS & Associates, CAs, Ward-23(2), I-35B, First Floor, Lajpat Nagar-1, New Delhi. New Delhi-110024. PAN-AEVPG6897E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by None Date of Hearing 07.12.2016 Date of Pronouncement 06.02.2017 ORDER The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 11.02.2016 of CIT(A)-10, New Delhi pertaining to 2011-12 assessment year on various grounds. 2…

Sh. Punayanand Giri, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3539/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-3539/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2006-07) Punyanand Giri, Vs Ito, 11-Bela Road, Shri Ram Road, Ward-20(2), Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. New Delhi. Pan-Ajupg8996N (Appellant) (Respondent)

…these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (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. The said order was pronounced on the dat…

Sh. Rahul Rathi, Noida vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2796/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2796/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2011-12) Rahul Rathi, Vs Ito, J-140, Jal Vayu Vihar, Sector-25, Ward-1(3), New Noida-201301. Delhi. Pan-Agtpr2907C (Appellant) (Respondent)

…these circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal and the appeal is dismissed in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (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. The said order was pronounced on the dat…

Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 2795/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .Nos.-2793 To 2795/Del/2016 (Assessment Years-2008-09 To 2010-11) Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Vs Dcit, Flat No.1, 15Th Floor, Circle-67(1), New Ats One Hamlet, Sector-104, Noida, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. Pan-Aaapm0450G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .Nos.-2793 to 2795/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2008-09 to 2010-11) Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Vs DCIT, Flat No.1, 15th Floor, Circle-67(1), New ATS One Hamlet, Sector-104, Noida, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. PAN-AAAPM0450G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms.Manisha Lahoti, CA Revenue by Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement 01.02.2017 ORDER These three appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the consolidated order dated 17.02.2016…

Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 2794/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .Nos.-2793 To 2795/Del/2016 (Assessment Years-2008-09 To 2010-11) Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Vs Dcit, Flat No.1, 15Th Floor, Circle-67(1), New Ats One Hamlet, Sector-104, Noida, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. Pan-Aaapm0450G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .Nos.-2793 to 2795/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2008-09 to 2010-11) Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Vs DCIT, Flat No.1, 15th Floor, Circle-67(1), New ATS One Hamlet, Sector-104, Noida, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. PAN-AAAPM0450G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms.Manisha Lahoti, CA Revenue by Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement 01.02.2017 ORDER These three appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the consolidated order dated 17.02.2016…

Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Gautam Budh Nagar vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine

ITA 2793/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi01 Feb 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .Nos.-2793 To 2795/Del/2016 (Assessment Years-2008-09 To 2010-11) Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Vs Dcit, Flat No.1, 15Th Floor, Circle-67(1), New Ats One Hamlet, Sector-104, Noida, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. Pan-Aaapm0450G (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-II’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .Nos.-2793 to 2795/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEARs-2008-09 to 2010-11) Rajinder Nath Mahendru, Vs DCIT, Flat No.1, 15th Floor, Circle-67(1), New ATS One Hamlet, Sector-104, Noida, Delhi. Gautam Budh Nagar-201304. PAN-AAAPM0450G (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by Ms.Manisha Lahoti, CA Revenue by Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 16.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement 01.02.2017 ORDER These three appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the consolidated order dated 17.02.2016…

M/S. Trans Tempo Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed

ITA 3057/CHNY/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai31 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Supriyo Pal, IRS, JCIT

…urnment cannot be considered. 2. Considering the facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting his 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. 3. In the result, the appeal of the assessee stands dismissed. Order pronounced on Tuesday, the 31st day of January, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER चे"नई/Chennai "दनांक/Dated: 31 January, 2017. KV आदेश क" ""त"ल"प अ"े"…

Assr Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO, Chennai

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

ITA 3046/CHNY/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George & Shri G. Pavan Kumarआयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No. 3046/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year : 2012-2013. M/S. Assr Infrastructure P. Ltd, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, No.6, 2Nd Street, Corporate Ward 1(1) Padmanabha Nagar, Chennai. Adyar, Chennai 600 020. [Pan Aajca 5333J] (अपीलाथ"/Appellant) (""यथ"/Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri. A.V. Sreekanth, IRS, JCIT

…is evident from the postal :- 2 -: acknowledgement placed on record. 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), we dismiss the appeal filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. 2. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands dismissed Order pronounced in the open court at the time of hearing on Tuesday, the 17th January, 2017, at Chennai. (जी. पवन कुमार) (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (G. PAVAN KUMAR) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER…

Live Connections Software P Ltd., Chennai vs. ITO (OSD), Chennai

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1249/CHNY/2015[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai25 Jan 2017AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Abraham P. George]

For Respondent: Shri. Ashish Tripathi, IRS, JCIT

…I am of the opinion that assessee is not serious in ITA No.1249/Mds/15 :- 2 -: prosecuting the appeal. Therefore, having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) and the judgment of the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of late Tukojirao Holkar (223 ITR 480), the appeal of the assessee is dismissed for want of prosecution. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. 2. Order pronounced on Wednesday, the 25th January, 2017, at Chennai. (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"…

M/S. Genesis Overseas Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2594/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri G.D. Agrawalbefore Shri G.D. Agrawal & And Before Shri Before Shri G.D. Agrawalg.D. Agrawal & And Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastavashri Sudhanshu Srivastava Shri Sudhanshu Srivastava

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amrit Lal, Senior DR

…l/2013 3. In view of the above, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting this appeal. While taking this view, we derive support from the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. – [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). Accordingly, we dismiss the assessee’s appeal in limine. 4. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed in limine. Decision pronounced in the open Court on 24.01.2017. (SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA) SUDHANSHU SRIVASTAVA (G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL G.D. AGRAWAL) G.D. AGRAWAL JUDICIAL MEM…

Corola Builders Pvt. Ltd., Meerut vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1003/DEL/2011[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi24 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

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

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Anil Kumar Sharma, Sr. DR

…ssee is not serious in pursuing its appeal. In the circumstances, the only alternative left with us is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 2 ITA No.1003/Del./2011 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. Before parting, we think it appropriate to add that in case the assessee is able to show reasonable cause for non-representation on the date of hearing, then it may, if so advised, pray for recall of this order and decision on merits. 4. In the result,…

Raghubir Singh (Prop.), Haryana vs. ITO, Panipat

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

ITA 444/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11 Raghubir Singh (Prop), Vs. Ito, R.S. Constructions Co., Ward-3, 207, Vikas Nagar, Panipat. Nfl Township, Panipat.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Prasanth, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Raghubir Singh (Prop), Vs. ITO, R.S. Constructions Co., Ward-3, 207, Vikas Nagar, Panipat. NFL Township, Panipat. PAN : AVDPS3936R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri V.K. Prasanth, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 19.01.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 15.12.2015 in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11. ITA No.444/Del/2016 2 2. When the matter was called up for hea…

Sh. Sudhir Chaudhary HUF, Panipat vs. ITO, Panipat

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

ITA 5387/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2017AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11 Sudhir Chaudhary Huf, Vs. Ito, C/O Surya Overseas, Ward 4, Jatal Road, Panipat. Panipat. Pan : Aabhs7608R

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Prasanth, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Sudhir Chaudhary HUF, Vs. ITO, C/o Surya Overseas, Ward 4, Jatal Road, Panipat. Panipat. PAN : AABHS7608R (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri V.K. Prasanth, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 18.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 18.01.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 11.08.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2010-11. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf of the…

M/S. Guru Kirpa Holding (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, Karnal

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

ITA 2580/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Kumar, Vs. Ito, S/O Shri Raghunath Singh, Ward-41(3), Village Jharsa, New Delhi. Gurgaon. Pan : Anopk1700E

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri V.K. Prasanth, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2011-12 Rajesh Kumar, Vs. ITO, S/o Shri Raghunath Singh, Ward-41(3), Village Jharsa, New Delhi. Gurgaon. PAN : ANOPK1700E (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri V.K. Prasanth, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 19.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement: 19.01.2017 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 14.09.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared on behalf…

M/S Narendra Singh, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 5422/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. R. S. Syalita No. 5422/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 M/S Narendra Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, D-65/66, Ganesh Nagar, Ward-60(5), Pandav Nagar, Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Brfps1442D Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. V. K. Prasanth, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2017 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 01.08.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-19 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. Despite Sending Notice Of Hearing Sufficiently In Advance, Neither Assessee Attended Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Received. It Is Thus Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute This Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. V. K. Prasanth, Sr. DR

…djournment has been received. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 3. 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 2 Narendra Singh Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2017. (R. S. Syal) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/01/2017 *Subodh*…

M/S. Rose Valley Education Society, New Delhi vs. ITO (Exemptions), New Delhi

In the result, the appeals are dismissed

ITA 4551/DEL/2016[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Sh. R. S. Syalita Nos. 4551 & 4552/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2012-13 M/S Rose Valley Education Vs Income Tax Officer (Exemption), C/O- Mahesh Kumar &Co., Flat Ward-2(4), No. 304, Arunachal Building, New Delhi Barakhamba Road, New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaatr3557K Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. V. K. Prasanth, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2017 Order These Two Appeals By The Assessee Are Directed Against The Orders Dated 22.06.2016 & 27.06.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-40 (Exemption) Against The Assessment Order Passed U/S 144 & Penalty Imposed U/S 271(1)(B) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 For The Assessment Year 2012-13. 2. Despite Sending Notice Of Hearing Sufficiently In Advance, Neither Assessee Attended Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Received. It Is Thus Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute These Appeals. 2 Rose Valley Education Society 3. Having Regard To Rule 19(2) Of Itat Rules & Following Various Decisions Of Delhi Bench Of The Tribunal Including That Of Multiplan India Ltd. 38 Itd 320 (Delhi) & Hon’Ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’S Decision In Estate Of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs Cwt; 223 Itr 480 (Mp), I Treat These Appeals As Unadmitted & Dismiss The Same.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. V. K. Prasanth, Sr. DR
Section 144Section 271(1)(b)

…s thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute these appeals. 2 Rose Valley Education Society 3. 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), I treat these appeals as unadmitted and dismiss the same. 4. In the result, the appeals are dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2017. (R. S. Syal) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/01/2017 *Subodh*…

O.P. Tulsyan & Co., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 1442/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Jan 2017AY 2011-12

Bench: Sh. R. S. Syalita No. 1442/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2011-12 M/S O. P. Tulsyan & Co., Vs Income Tax Officer, B-27/5, Ramesh Nagar, Range-37(1), New Delhi New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaafo0729Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. V. K. Prasanth, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 17.01.2017 Order This Appeal By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 08.02.2016 Passed By The Ld. Cit(A)-20 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2011-12. 2. Despite Sending Notice Of Hearing Sufficiently In Advance, Neither Assessee Attended Nor Any Application For Adjournment Has Been Received. It Is Thus Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute This Appeal.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. V. K. Prasanth, Sr. DR

…djournment has been received. It is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested to prosecute this appeal. 3. 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 2 O. P. Tulsyan & Co. Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar Vs CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. 4. In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open court on 17.01.2017. (R. S. Syal) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Dated: 17/01/2017 *Subodh…