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 367,154 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.

Uday Damodar Bajaj, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani Math, Nashik vs. Officer of the Income Tax, Ward 1(1), Nashik

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

ITA 1341/PUN/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Pune23 Aug 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shir Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.1341/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2017-18 Uday Damodar Bajaj, V The Income Tax Officer, Near Jog Maharaj, Bhajani S Ward-1(1), Nashik. Math, Dhammagiri Road, Varachi Peth, Igatpuri – 422403. Pan: Ahypb2584P Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By Shri Rajendra Agiwal – Ar Revenue By Shri Sandeep P Sathe – Jcit(Dr) Date Of Hearing 22/08/2024 Date Of Pronouncement 23/08/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeal)/Jcit(A)-7, Kolkata Passed Under Section 250 Of The Income Tax Act, Dated 19.04.2024 For The A.Y.2017-18. The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “The Appellant, Aggrieved By The Order Passed By Ld. Additional / Joint Cit(A) - 7, Kolkata U/S 250 Of The Act Dated 19.04.2024 Preferred This Uday Damodar Bajaj [A]

Section 144Section 250Section 250(6)Section 270FSection 271ASection 69A

…h Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in def and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) L (1991)(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for nonprosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” 4.2 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court has held in the case of Pr.CIT(Central) Vs. Premkumar Arjundas Luthra (HUF)(Bombay)/[2017] 2…

Turimella Vasu Babu, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 644/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 643/Hyd/2024 & 644/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Adv.Manjula, appeared for Adv.Shaik Jeelani BashaFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…the order of the learned CIT(A) in the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) dismissed this appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee by applying the ratio in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd 38 ITD 320. I find that this order is not in compliance with the requirement of the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Act. Since the quantum appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A), the order of learned CIT(A) in the appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside and the same is restored to the file…

Turimella Vasu Babu, Adoni vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1, Adoni

In the result, appeals of the assessee are treated as allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 643/HYD/2024[2015-2016]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad05 Aug 2024AY 2015-2016

Bench: Shri K. Narasimha Charyआ.अपी.सं / Ita No. 643/Hyd/2024 & 644/Hyd/2024 (निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year: 2015-16)

For Appellant: Adv.Manjula, appeared for Adv.Shaik Jeelani BashaFor Respondent: Shri Gudimella V P Pavan Kumar, DR
Section 271(1)(c)

…the order of the learned CIT(A) in the appeal of the assessee against levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act. Learned CIT(A) dismissed this appeal for non-prosecution by the assessee by applying the ratio in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd 38 ITD 320. I find that this order is not in compliance with the requirement of the provisions under section 250 (6) of the Act. Since the quantum appeal is restored to the file of the learned CIT(A), the order of learned CIT(A) in the appeal against the levy of penalty under section 271(1)(c) of the Act is also set aside and the same is restored to the file…

Mansoor Mirza, Jaora vs. ITO, Neemuch

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

ITA 153/IND/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri Vijay Pal Rao & Shri B.M. Biyanimansoor Mirza Ito 110, Chhawani Jaora Dewas Vs. Jaora (Appellant / Assessee) (Respondent/ Revenue) Pan: Angpm9218H Assessee By Shri Soumya Bumb, Ar Revenue By Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 24.07.2024 Date Of Pronouncement 29.07.2024

Section 144Section 69

…, the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of pursuing of appeal has stated that "preferring an appeal means more than formally filing it but effectively pursuing it". The Hon'ble ITAT, Delhi, in CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., as reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi), when faced with a similar situation of non- pursuing of appeal dismissed the appeal of Revenue. The law assists those who are vigilant and not those who sleep over their rights. This principle is embodied in the following maxin- "vigilantibus non dormientibus jura subveniunt". In view of the above, it is clear that the appellant is not in…

Kalu Jat, Ajmer vs. ITO, Ward 2(2), Ajmer

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

ITA 747/JPR/2023[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur29 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon,Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench On 07.12.2023 Against The Ex-Parte Order Passed By Ld. Cit(Appeals) Nfac, New Delhi, Order Dated 07.09.2023. The Appeal No. Is Ita No. 747/Jpr/2023. 2. The Present Appeal Was Filed With A Delay Of 31 Days. 3. That The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of Appellant, As He Did Not Filed The Appeal Well Within The Specified Time. 4. Then, On 06.12.2023, Appellant Engaged A New Counsel Of Jaipur, Ca Raghuveer Singh Poonia & On The Very Next Day The New Counsel Filed The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. 5. Therefore, The Delay In Filing Of Appeal Was Due To Mistake Of Earlier Counsel Of Appellant, Which Can Be Treated As Reasonable Cause & Bonafide Mistake Of Appellant In Good Faith In Filing The Appeal Before Hon'Ble Itat, Jaipur Bench. In View Of Above Submission Your Good Self Are Request That Kindly Consider This As Reasonable Cause To Condone The Delay & Kindly Admit The Appeal. So The Substantial Justice May Be Delivered To The Appellant." 2.2 The Ld. Ar Of The Assessee Appearing In This Appeals Submitted That The Delay Of 31 Days Is On Account Of Due To Mistake Of Earlier Local Counsel Of The Assessee, As He Did Not Inform The Assessee In Proper Time & Subsequently The Assessee Engaged A New Counsel On The Very Next Day & Filed The Appeal. Considering The Various Judicial Precedent Where In The Courts Has Considered That Change Of The New Counsel Is A Reasonable Reason & Has Considered The Delay. Even The Hon'Ble 3

Section 148ASection 56(2)(i)Section 69

…e the reference is made 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, this court is not bound to answer the reference". 3. 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 neither 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 Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the p…

M/S Health Amenities Multi Purpose District Co-Op Society Ltd, Calicut vs. ITO Ward 1(1), Kozhikode

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 108/COCH/2023[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Cochin12 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Smt. Beena Pillai & Shri Waseem Ahmedassessment Years : 2017-18 M/S. Health Amenities Multipurpose District Co- Operative Society, The Income Tax 1 M P Complex, Officer, Kandamkulam Cross Road, Ward – 1(1), Chalapuram P O, Kozhikode. Calicut, Vs. Kerala – 673 002. Pan: Aaaah9178D Appellant Respondent : Ms. Megha Amm George, Assessee By Advocate Revenue By : Shri Ilayaraja K.S, Sr. Dr

For Respondent: Ms. Megha Amm George
Section 80P(2)

…and therefore could not represent the case before the Ld.CIT(A). The Ld.AR also submitted that the Ld.CIT(A) dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution by following the decision of Hon'ble Delhi Tribunal in case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd. reported in 38 ITD 320 (Delhi). He prayed for the delay to be condoned before the Ld.CIT(A) and the appeal may be decided on merits. 3. The Ld.AR submitted that, the only issue raised in the present appeal is regarding disallowance of deduction claimed u/s. 80P(2) of the act. He submitted that, the Ld.AO disallowed the claim of assessee by observing that assessee do no…

M/S Vindhyavasini Automobile, Barabanki vs. D/ACIT-3, Lucknow-New

ITA 147/LKW/2024[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow11 Jul 2024AY 2015-16

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 147/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2015-16 M/S Vindhyavasini Automobile Haidergarh Road, Kothi, Barabanki, Up-255119 Pan: Aalfv1251B . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr PK Kapoor [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Ms Adita Singh [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…e appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without adjudicating it on merits by placing reliance on ‘CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee’ [1997, 118 ITR 461 (SC)], ‘Estate of Late Tukojiro Holkar Vs CWT’ [1997, 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and ‘CIT Vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.’ [1991, 38 ITD 320]. 5. We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act which obligates the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue either by confirming or annulling the addition or reducing or enhancing the addition made by the assessing officer without the right to remand the matter back. However, while exercising th…

Mahesh Chand Sharma, Bharatpur vs. ITO, WD 1, Bharatpur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with no orders as 3

ITA 589/JPR/2024[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2013-14

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR
Section 271E

…ehalf of the assessee when it was called for hearing. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue his cases. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine. 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.5 The Bench further on merit heard the ld. DR and perused…

Dilip Kumar Pachori, Pratapgarh vs. DCIT (Circle) Intl. Tax, Jaipur

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with no orders as 3

ITA 588/JPR/2024[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2016-17

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

…ehalf of the assessee when it was called for hearing. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue his cases. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine. 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.5 The Bench further on merit heard the ld. DR and perused…

Rameshwar Prasad Saini, Kotputli vs. ITO WD Behror, Behror

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed with no orders as 3

ITA 481/JPR/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur10 Jul 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: SHRI SANDEEP GOSAIN (Judicial Member)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Monisha Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR

…ehalf of the assessee when it was called for hearing. From this, it appears that the assessee is not interested to pursue his cases. So in the circumstances, following the decision of Delhi Bench of ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 and also on the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukhoji Rao Holkar Vs. CWT [1997] 223 ITR 480, the appeal of the assessee is not admitted and is dismissed in limine. 2.4 During the course of hearing, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld. CIT(A). 2.5 The Bench further on merit heard the ld. DR and perused…

Tapan Kumar Barman, Sodepur vs. ITO, Ward-50(5), Kolkata

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

ITA 85/KOL/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata08 Jul 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Dr. Manish Borad, Hon’Ble & Shri Sonjoy Sarma, Hon’Blei.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Barman Income Tax Officer, Ward-50(5), D-3/303, Peerless Nagar Vs Kolkata Sodepur, P.O. Panihati 24 Parganas (N) West Bengal - 700114 [Pan : Afwpb7516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee By : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue By : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, Jcit, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date Of Hearing : 13/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement: 08/07/2024 आदेश/O R D E R Per Dr. Manish Borad: The Present Appeal Is Directed At The Instance Of The Assessee Against The Orderof The National Faceless Appeal Centre, (Hereinafter The “Ld. Cit(A)”) Dt.11/12/2023, Passed U/S 250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961 (“The Act”) For Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. Though The Assessee Has Raised As Many As Six Grounds Of Appeal But The Sole Grievance Of The Assessee Is That Since The Impugned Order Is Ex-Parte & Even The Assessee Could Not Appear Before The Ld. Assessing Officer For Bonafidereasons & No Details Could Be Filed Before The Lower Authorities & Thus Made Prayer To Restore The Matter Back To The File Of The Ld. Assessing Officer For De Novo Assessment. 3. We Have Heard Rival Contentions & Perused The Material Placed Before Us. We Note That The Assessee Is An Individual & 2

For Appellant: Shri Siddharth Agarwal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R
Section 143(2)Section 250Section 69A

…| आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण"यायपीठ,कोलकाता| IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH, KOLKATA BEFORE DR. MANISH BORAD, HON’BLE ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SHRI SONJOY SARMA, HON’BLE JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 85/Kol/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Tapan Kumar Barman Income tax Officer, Ward-50(5), D-3/303, Peerless Nagar Vs Kolkata Sodepur, P.O. Panihati 24 Parganas (N) West Bengal - 700114 [PAN : AFWPB7516H] अपीलाथ"/ (Appellant) "" यथ"/ (Respondent) Assessee by : Shri Siddharth Agarwal, Advocate Revenue by : Shri G. Ajay Robin Singh, JCIT, Sr. D/R सुनवाई क" तारीख/Date of Hearing : 13/06/2024 घोषणा क" तारीख /Date of Pronounc…

Shiv Charan H.No.640 Sarswati Mohalla Mustafabad Yamunanagar, Yamunanagar vs. The Income Tax Officer Ward-4, Yamunanagar, Yamunananagar

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 685/CHANDI/2023[2012-2013]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh04 Jul 2024AY 2012-2013

Bench: Dr Krinwant Sahay & Shri Paresh M. Joshiआयकर अपील सं./ Ita No. 685/Chd/2023 "नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2012-13 Shiv Charan, Vs. The Ito, बनाम Ward-1, H.No. 640, Sarswati Yamunanagar Mohalla Mustafabad Yamunanagar "थायी लेखा सं./Pan No: Ahwpc0128J अपीलाथ"/ Appellant ""यथ"/ Repsondent ( Hybrid Hearing ) "नधा"रती क" ओर से/Assessee By : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज"व क" ओर से/ Revenue By : Shri Rahul Sohu, Jcit, Sr. Dr सुनवाई क" तार"ख/Date Of Hearing : 02.07.2024 उदघोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement : 04.07.2024 आदेश/Order

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri Rahul Sohu, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 147Section 250Section 253

…the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT, (1997) (223 ITR 480) (M.P.) dismissed the reference in default and for not taking necessary steps. Similar view has been taken by I.T.A.T. Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs. Multlplan India (P) Ltd. (1991)(38 ITD 320). Considering the above, it appears that the appellant is not interested in prosecuting his appeal. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed for non-prosecution. 5. In the result, the appeal is dismissed.” Record of Hearing 6. The hearing was held on 02/07/2024 when both ld. AR and ld. DR were heard at length for some time. The…

M/S. Gordhansingh S Rajpurohit, Navi Mumbai vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5, Panvel

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

ITA 512/PUN/2024[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Pune01 Jul 2024AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

For Appellant: N O N EFor Respondent: Shri Ramnath P. Murkunde
Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 145Section 68

…aring was adjourned to 01.07.2024 but none appeared for and /or on behalf of the assessee. We heard the Ld. DR. 9. We have perused the case records. The appellate order reveals that the Ld. CIT(A) has applied the decision in CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P.) Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.). No doubt, the Ld. CIT(A) may decide the appeal ex-parte where the assessee does not prosecute his appeal inspite of several opportunities. None-the-less, he has to adhere to the legislative mandate enshrined in sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act which requires him to state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the r…

Smt. Bugli Devi, Tehsil Amer, Jhotwara, Jaipur vs. ITO, Ward-7(2), Jaipur

In the result, the appeal is dismissed

ITA 278/JPR/2024[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur28 Jun 2024AY 2012-13

Bench: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI (Judicial Member), SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI (Accountant Member)

For Appellant: Shri P.C. Parwal (C.A.)For Respondent: Shri Ajey Malik (CIT) (Th. V.C.)
Section 139(1)Section 144Section 148Section 250Section 271(1)(c)

…s to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps for preparation of the paper books so as to enable hearing of the reference, this court is not bound to answer the reference". 4 Smt. Bugli Devi vs. ITO 3. 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 neither 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 Hon'ble Tribunal laid down the pr…

Nrw Kuldeep Singh, Sukhvider Singh & Others, Kanpur vs. Dy. CIT, Circle-1(1)(1), Kanpur

ITA 76/LKW/2024[2018-19]Status: DisposedITAT Lucknow27 Jun 2024AY 2018-19

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri G. D. Padmahshali & Shri Subhash Malguriaआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No. 076/Lkw/2024 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2018-19 New Kuldeep Singh Sukhvinder Singh & Ors 111A/29B, Rk Nagar, Kanpur. Up-208 012 Pan: Aadan2365F . . . . . . . अपीलार्थी / Appellant

For Appellant: Mr Samrat Chandra [‘Ld. AR’]For Respondent: Mr SK Sharma [‘Ld. DR’]
Section 139(1)Section 143(3)Section 250Section 250(6)Section 251Section 251(1)(a)Section 253(1)(a)

…the appeal ex-parte for non-prosecution without adjudicating the merits by placing reliance on ‘CIT Vs B. N. Bhattacharjee’ [1997, 118 ITR 461 (SC)], ‘Estate of Late Tukojiro Holkar Vs CWT’ [1997, 223 ITR 480 (MP)] and ‘CIT Vs Multiplan India (P) Ltd.’ [1991, 38 ITD 320]. 6. We are heedful to the restriction placed by clause (a) of sub-section (1) of section 251 of the Act which obligates the Ld. CIT(A) to adjudicate the issue either by confirming or annulling the addition or reducing or enhancing the addition made by the assessing officer without the right to remand the matter back. However, while exercising th…

Sanjay Kumar Singh, Kolkata vs. ACIT, E-Assessment Centre, Delhi

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

ITA 453/KOL/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri Rajpal Yadav & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2020-21

For Appellant: Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & ShriFor Respondent: Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT
Section 250Section 56(2)(x)

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI RAJPAL YADAV, VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sanjay Kumar Singh Assessing Officer, National e- 579, Purbalok, E.M. Bye Pass, Assessment Centre, Delhi Vs Kalikapur, Mukundapur, Kolkata-700099. (PAN: ALXPS1254N) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri P. K. Ray, Advocate, Shri S. N. Patra & Shri Sayantan Patra, ARs Respondent by : Shri B. K. Singh, Addl. CIT Date of Hearing : 11.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2024 O R D E R PER RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER: This appeal…

M/S. Ganan Mercantile Private Limited., Chennai vs. ITO, Ward-8(2), Kolkata

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

ITA 931/KOL/2023[2014-15]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Jun 2024AY 2014-15

Bench: Shri Sanjay Garg & Shri Rakesh Mishraassessment Year: 2014-15

For Appellant: Shri Miraj D. Shah, ARFor Respondent: Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR
Section 142(1)Section 144Section 250Section 35A

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH KOLKATA BEFORE SHRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI RAKESH MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Ganan Mercantile Private Income Tax Officer, Ward- Limited (now known as 8(2), Kolkata Samson Angel Investments Pvt. Ltd.) Vs No. 191, Demellows Road, Samson Tower (Diagonally Opp. Natraj Theatre), Choolai Chennai, Tamilnadu-600112. (PAN: AABCG7600E) (Appellant) (Respondent) Present for: Appellant by : Shri Miraj D. Shah, AR Respondent by : Shri Sailen Samadder, Addl. CIT, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 06.06.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 21.06.2024 O R D E…

Sandip Madhukar Mhatre, Uran, Dist, Raigad vs. Assessing Officer, Assessment Unit, I.T.Department, Panvel

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

ITA 308/PUN/2024[2020-21]Status: DisposedITAT Pune05 Jun 2024AY 2020-21

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.308/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2020-21 Sandip Madhukar Mhatre, Vs. Assessing Officer, House No.1193, Mulekhand, Assessment Unit, I.T. At Post Uran Telipada, Department, Panvel. Dist. Raigad- 400702. Pan : Aempm9754P Appellant Respondent Assessee By : Shri Subodh Ratnaparkhi Revenue By : Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari Date Of Hearing : 27.05.2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 05.06.2024 आदेश / Order Per Vinay Bhamore, Jm: This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Dated 12.01.2024 Passed By Ld Cit(A)/Nfac, Delhi For The Assessment Year 2020-21. 2. The Appellant Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal :- “1. The Hon. Cit(A) Erred In Dismissing The Appeal Ex-Parte, For Alleged Non-Compliance To Appeal Notices, Inspite Of The Appellant Being Not Aware Of The Notices Issued & For This Reason The Order Dismissing The Appeal Was Not Justified & May Kindly Be Over Turned & Set Aside.

For Appellant: Shri Subodh RatnaparkhiFor Respondent: Shri Ajay Kumar Keshari
Section 143(2)Section 250(6)Section 28Section 57

…t want to purse the appeal, appellant authorities have inherent power to dismiss the appeal for non-prosecution. Similar view has been expressed in the case of Late Tukojirao Holkar (MP), 223 ITR 440. Likewise, in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan India (P) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del) similar view had been taken. I am, therefore, convinced that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. I, therefore, dismiss the appeal of the assessee as un-admitted.” 5. Being aggrieved with the decision of the ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, the assessee is in appeal before this Tribunal. 6. Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted before…

M/S. Vetrivel Pandian Builders, Chennai vs. ITO, Non Corp. Ward 14(4), Chennai

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee in ITA

ITA 12/CHNY/2024[2017-18]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai05 Jun 2024AY 2017-18

Bench: Shri Mahavir Singhand Shri Jagadish

For Appellant: Ms. T.V. Muthu Abirami, AdvocateFor Respondent: Shri P. Sajit Kumar, JCIT
Section 144Section 69

…eal. This view has been affirmed by Hon'ble ITAT Ahmedabad in case of Amitkumar H.Shah Vs. ACIT in ITA No. 2985/Ahd/2010 vide their order dated 31.12.2013, wherein following the order of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of CIT Vs Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., [1991] 38 ITD 320 (Del), ITAT has dismissed the appeal filed by the assessee for want of persuasion. Under these circumstances, the current appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed.” The ld.counsel also pointed out that the AO has not at all examined the assessee’s reply and source of deposit. However, it was pointed out that once the CIT(A)-NFAC has not…

Shrinathji Shares Tarding Private Limited, Mumbai vs. National Faceless Appeal Centre (Nafc), Delhi

In the result, appeal in ITA 189/Mum/2024 is allowed for statistical purpose

ITA 189/MUM/2024[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2024AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri B.R. Baskaran & Shri Anikesh Banerjee

For Appellant: Shri Vimal Punmiya,CAFor Respondent: Shri Dinesh Chourasia – Sr. AR
Section 144Section 147Section 148Section 250Section 68

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “G”, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI B.R. BASKARAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI ANIKESH BANERJEE, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA 189/Mum/2024 (Assessment year : 2011-12) Shrinathji Shares Trading Pvt vs National Faceless Appeal Centre Limited, (NFAC), Delhi 701, Sargam Building, Opp Poisar Gymkhana, Sababa Extn Road, Kandivali West, Mumbai- 400 067 PAN : AALCS3951Q APPELLANT RESPONDENT Assessee by : Shri Vimal Punmiya,CA Respondent by : Shri Dinesh Chourasia – Sr. AR Date of hearing : 30/05/2024 Date of pronouncement : 05/ 06/2024 O R D E R PER ANIKESH BANERJEE, J.M: Instant appeal…