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 367,359 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.

M/S. R.P. Milkmade Products Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 646/DEL/2012[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi06 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2008-09 Vs. Acit, Circle-15(1), C.R. Building, R.P.Milkmade Products Pvt. Ltd, 3/16, West Patel Nagar, New New Delhi Delhi Pan : Aaacr7284A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. F.R. Meena, Sr.Dr Date Of Hearing 05.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement 06.01.2017 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: This Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeal)-Xviii, New Delhi, Dated 07.11.2011 For Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. In This Case, The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee For Hearing By Regd. Ad Post For 05.01.2017 At The Address Mentioned In Form No. 36 Vide Column No. 10, But Neither The Assessee Nor His Authorized Representative Attended The Hearing & Also Not Filed Any Application For Adjournment. It Is, Thus, Inferred That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecution Of His Appeal, Therefore, In Our Considered Opinion, No Useful Purpose Would Be Served To Send The Notice Again & Again On The Same Address. 3. Considering The Facts Of The Case & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 As Were 2

…on the same address. 3. Considering the facts of the case and keeping in view the provisions of Rule 19(2) of the Income-tax (Appellate Tribunal) Rules, 1963 as were 2 ITA No. 646/Del./2012 AY: 2008-09 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeal is liable to be dismissed for want of prosecution. 3. 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…

M/S Poineer Contractors & Engineers Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2666/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi05 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…cordingly in the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee 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). I.T.A .No.-2666/Del/2016 Poineer Contractors & Engineers P.Ltd. vs ITO Page 2 of 2 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…

M/S S S Enterprise, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-26(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 946/KOL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.946/Kol/2016 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2007-2008) M/S S.S.Enterprise, Vs. Ito, Ward-53(2), Kolkata, Kamalgazi, Narendrapur, Presently Ito Ward-26(3), Kolkata-700103 Aayakar Bhawan Dakshin, 2, Gariahat Road(South), Kolkata-700068 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No.: Abefs 2293 Q .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Md. Ghyas Uddin, Jcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 04/01/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 04/01/2017 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 31.03.2016 Of Cit(A)-7, Kolkata, Relating To Ay 2007-08. 2. This Appeal Was Listed For Hearing Today I.E. On 04.01.2017 As Per The Adjournment Letter Filed By The Assessee On 28.11.2016. However No One Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee On The Date Of Hearing. Neither Any Further Adjournment Petition Was Filed In Respect Of The Above Assessee. 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.” M/S S.S.Enterprise

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Md. Ghyas Uddin, 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…

Smt Arati Sen, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-7(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 659/KOL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata04 Jan 2017AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Assessment Year 2006-07 Smt. Arati Sen Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R Of (Late) Gopinath Sen Ward-7(3), Kolkata 1/Ic, Shibdas Bhaduri Street Kolkata-700004 Pan/Gir No.: Aapts 9174 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : Rajat Kumar Kureel, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Assessment Year 2006-07 Smt. Arati Sen Vs. Income Tax Officer L/R of (Late) Gopinath Sen Ward-7(3), Kolkata 1/IC, Shibdas Bhaduri Street Kolkata-700004 PAN/GIR No.: AAPTS 9174 G (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Rajat Kumar Kureel, JCIT Date of Hearing : 30/12/2016 Date of Pronouncement : 04/01/2017 O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 21.01.2016 of CIT(A)-16, Kolkata, relating to AY 2006-07. 2. This appeal came for heari…

M/S A. P. Engineering Corporation, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata

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

ITA 268/KOL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata03 Jan 2017AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri A.T.Varkey, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am Assessment Year 2008-09 M/S A. P. Engineering Corporation, Vs. Ito, Ward-51(4), Af-321, Rabindrapally, Kolkata Ralbagan, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 Pan/Gir No.: Aaffa 1859 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee By : None Revenue By : None

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C”, BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI A.T.VARKEY, JM & DR. A.L.SAINI, AM Assessment Year 2008-09 M/s A. P. Engineering Corporation, Vs. ITO, Ward-51(4), AF-321, Rabindrapally, Kolkata Ralbagan, Kestopur, Kolkata-700101 PAN/GIR No.: AAFFA 1859 E (Appellant) .. ( Respondent) Assessee by : None Revenue by : None Date of Hearing : 03/01/2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03/01/2017 O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 29.11.2013 of CIT(A)-XXXII, Kolkata, relating to AY 2008-09. 2. This appeal came for hearing today i.e. on 03.01.…

Mr. Seva Singh, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 4721/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2007-08

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 4721/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Seva Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/S Shakti Business System, Ward-51(1), Bq-25, West Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110088 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaxps6751R Assessee By : None Revenue By : None Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 06.07.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-17, New Delhi. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. The Notice Of Hearing Was Sent To The Assessee On 03.11.2016 Through Rpad Which Has Not Yet Been Returned Back By The Postal Authority. It, Therefore, Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Matter.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 4721/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2007-08 Mr. Seva Singh, Vs Income Tax Officer, Prop. M/s Shakti Business System, Ward-51(1), BQ-25, West Shalimar Bagh, New Delhi New Delhi-110088 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAXPS6751R Assessee by : None Revenue by : None Date of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 06.07.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-17, New Delhi. 2. During the course of hearing nobody was present on behalf of the assesse…

Sh. Vijay Kumar, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 6073/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Jan 2017AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm Ita Nos. 6073 & 6074/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vijay Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/O P.N. Chawla, Advocate, Ward-39(4), B-V, Vandhana, 11, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Ahzpk2007P Assessee By : None Revenue By : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, Cit Dr Date Of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date Of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am:

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Ms. Jyoti Kumari, CIT DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA Nos. 6073 & 6074/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Vijay Kumar, Vs Income Tax Officer, C/o P.N. Chawla, Advocate, Ward-39(4), B-V, Vandhana, 11, Tolstoy Marg New Delhi New Delhi-110001 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AHZPK2007P Assessee by : None Revenue by : Ms. Jyoti Kumari, CIT DR Date of Hearing : 03.01.2017 Date of Pronouncement : 03.01.2017 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: These appeals by the assessee are directed against the separate orders each dated 10.09.2013 of ld. CIT(A)- XX…

M/S Dhanoolall & Sons, Kolkata vs. ACIT, Cir-34, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 569/KOL/2014[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata02 Jan 2017AY 2007-2008

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi

…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, we 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 January 02, 2017. (S.S.…

M/S Leelavati Somany Education Trust, Rewari vs. ACIT, Rewari

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

ITA 2565/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2565/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2010-11) Leelavati Somany Education Trust, Vs Acit, C/O-Naman Sharma, Advocate, Rewari 6863, Bas Sitab Rai, Rewari-123401. Pan-Aaatl4026H (Appellant) (Respondent)

…can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly, the appeal of the assessee 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…

Smt. Prit Pal Kaur, Roorkee vs. ITO, Roorkee

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

ITA 2153/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2153 To 2155/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2006-07 To 2008-09) Prit Pal Kaur, Vs Ito, 437, Civil Lines, Roorkee Ward-2, Pan-Abbpk7405R Roorkee (Appellant) (Respondent)

…serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Accordingly, in the absence of any reasons given, it is considered appropriate to dismiss the appeals 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. Tarun Kalra, Roorkee vs. ITO, Roorkee

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

ITA 2149/DEL/2016[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2148 & 2149/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2007-08 To 2008-09) Tarun Kalra, Vs Ito, 437, Civil Lines, Roorkee Ward-2, Pan-Arrpk8656N Roorkee (Appellant) (Respondent)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘SMC-I’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A .No.-2148 & 2149/Del/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2007-08 to 2008-09) Tarun Kalra, Vs ITO, 437, Civil Lines, Roorkee Ward-2, PAN-ARRPK8656N Roorkee (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh.F.R.Meena, Sr.DR Date of Hearing 09.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement 29.12.2016 ORDER Both these appeals have been filed by the assessee assailing the correctness of the order dated 05.01.2016 of CIT(A), Dehradun pertaining to 2007-08 to 2008-09 assessment years on various grounds. 2. However, at the time o…

Smt. Tarun Kalra, Roorkee vs. ITO, Roorkee

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

ITA 2148/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2148 & 2149/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2007-08 To 2008-09) Tarun Kalra, Vs Ito, 437, Civil Lines, Roorkee Ward-2, Pan-Arrpk8656N Roorkee (Appellant) (Respondent)

Shri Bhupinderjit Singh Sawhney, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 3572/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Dec 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…the absence of any representation or petition seeking time, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Page 2 of 2 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…

M/S. Mathur Imports & Exports Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2923/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Dec 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2923/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Mathur Imports & Exports Pvt.Ltd., Vs Ito, 29, Najafgarh Road, Shivaji Marg, Ward-6(3), New New Delhi-110015. Delhi. Pan-Aaacm0006B (Appellant) (Respondent)

Sajal Roy, Hooghly vs. ITO, WD-22(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 727/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Dec 2016AY 2010-2011

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: SK. Z.H. Tanweer, JCIT, Sr.DR

M/S. Raj Enterprises, Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward-36(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1613/KOL/2014[2004-2005]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Dec 2016AY 2004-2005

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Prabal Choudhury, JCIT

M/S Mukherjee & Chatterjee Enterprises, Durgapur vs. ITO, WD-1(4), Burdwan, Durgapur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 476/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2016AY 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 assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2016. (P.M.…

Mr Barun Pramanik, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Cir-55, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 386/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Dec 2016AY 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 assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 20, 2016. (P.M.…

Purnima Ghorai, Purba Medinipur vs. ITO, WD-2, Haldia, Purba Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 245/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2016AY 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 assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on December 19, 2016. (P.M.…

Poonam Agarwaol, Kolkata vs. DCIT, Circle-23, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 109/KOL/2015[2007-2008]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata19 Dec 2016AY 2007-2008

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 December 19, 2016. (P.M.…