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 367,302 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.

Nikhil Seksaria, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-51(4), Kolkata

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

ITA 314/KOL/2014[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Nov 2016AY 2009-2010

Bench: Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, Jm & Dr. A.L.Saini, Am आयकर अपील सं./Ita No.314/Kol/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Year:2009-2010) Nikhil Seksaria, Vs. Ito Ward-51(4), Kolkata C/O Manish Dokania, 12, Mango Lane, Kolkata- 700001 "थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./Pan/Gir No. : Beaps 0039 C .. (अपीलाथ" /Appellant) (""यथ" / Respondent) "नधा"रती क" ओर से /Assessee By : None राज"व क" ओर से /Revenue By : Shri Sallong Yaden, Adcit सुनवाई क" तार"ख / Date Of Hearing : 23/11/2016 घोषणा क" तार"ख/Date Of Pronouncement 25/11/2016 आदेश / O R D E R Per Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, Am: The Captioned Appeal Filed By The Assessee, Pertaining To The Assessment Year 2009-2010, Is Directed Against An Order Passed By Ld. Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-Xxxii, Kolkata In Appeal No.119/Xxxii/11-12/51(4)/Kol, Dated 12.11.2013, Which In Turn Arises Out Of An Order Passed By The Assessing Officer (Ao) Under Section.143(3) Of The Income Tax Act 1961, (In Short The ‘Act’), Dated 30.12.2011. 2. This Appeal Came For Hearing Today I.E. On 23.11.2016. The Notice Was Sent To The Assessee For Hearing By Registered Post With Ad On 28.6.2016, 26.07.2016, 01.09.2016 & 9.11.2016 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. Neither An 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 Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, ADCIT

…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…

Chanakya Finance Corporation vs. ITO

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1624/BANG/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore23 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri. Vijay Pal Rao

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri. Kamaladhar, Standing Counsel

…3 Page - 2 on the date of hearing. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting its case. We dismiss the appeal following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the ITAT in CIT v. Multiplan India P.Ltd., (1991) 38 ITD 320 and of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukoji Rao Holkar v. CWT (1997) 223 ITR 480, as the appeal is infructuous for non-prosecution. 03. In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 23rd November, 2016. (VIJAY PAL RAO) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER MCN* Copy to: 1. The assessee 2. The…

M/S. Wuhan Research Institute of Post and Telecommunication India Project Office, Noida vs. ADIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2058/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5810/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wri India Branch Office, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-48, Sector-65, Noida, Tax, Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw5534A Ita No. 2058/Del/2014: Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Wuhan Research Institute Of Post Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax & Telecommunication-Project Circle-2(2), (Int. Taxation), Office, C-48, Sector-65, New Delhi Noida -201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw4737B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 28.08.2013 & 30.11.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Noida & Ld. Cit(A)-Xxv, New Delhi For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2003-04 Respectively. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. In 2 Wri India Branch Office Spite Of The Fact That Notices Of Hearing Were Issued On 03.10.2016 By Rpad At The Address Mentioned In The Impugned Orders & Form Nos. 36 Which Have 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: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…9IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 5810/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2009-10 WRI India Branch Office, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income C-48, Sector-65, Noida, Tax, Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACW5534A ITA No. 2058/Del/2014: Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Wuhan Research Institute of Post Vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax, & Telecommunication-Project Circle-2(2), (Int. Taxation), Office, C-48, Sector-65, New Delhi Noida -201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACW4737B Assessee by : None Rev…

Wri India Branch Office, Noida vs. ACIT, Noida

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

ITA 5810/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Ms. Suchitra Kamble, Jm Ita No. 5810/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Wri India Branch Office, Vs Asstt. Commissioner Of Income C-48, Sector-65, Noida, Tax, Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw5534A Ita No. 2058/Del/2014: Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Wuhan Research Institute Of Post Vs Asstt. Director Of Income Tax & Telecommunication-Project Circle-2(2), (Int. Taxation), Office, C-48, Sector-65, New Delhi Noida -201301 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaacw4737B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 22.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 22.11.2016 Order Per N. K. Saini, Am: These Are The Appeals By The Assessee Against The Orders Dated 28.08.2013 & 30.11.2012 Of Ld. Cit(A), Noida & Ld. Cit(A)-Xxv, New Delhi For The Assessment Years 2009-10 & 2003-04 Respectively. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. In 2 Wri India Branch Office Spite Of The Fact That Notices Of Hearing Were Issued On 03.10.2016 By Rpad At The Address Mentioned In The Impugned Orders & Form Nos. 36 Which Have 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: Sh. Umesh Chand Dubey, Sr. DR

…9IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘D’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Ms. Suchitra Kamble, JM ITA No. 5810/Del/2013: Asstt. Year : 2009-10 WRI India Branch Office, Vs Asstt. Commissioner of Income C-48, Sector-65, Noida, Tax, Circle-2, Uttar Pradesh-201301 Noida (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACW5534A ITA No. 2058/Del/2014: Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Wuhan Research Institute of Post Vs Asstt. Director of Income Tax, & Telecommunication-Project Circle-2(2), (Int. Taxation), Office, C-48, Sector-65, New Delhi Noida -201301 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACW4737B Assessee by : None Rev…

Vikram Singh, New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4566/DEL/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-4566 & 4567/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2004-05 & 2008-09) Vikram Singh, Vs Dcit, Central Circle-20, 3Rd Floor, C-18-19, Qutab Institutional Area, New Delhi-110016. Ara Centre, Jhandewalan Pan-Aamps8704R Extn., New Delhi. (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 271(1)(c)

…ted, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine as it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeals filed. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan 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…

Karuna Shanker, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3154/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 3154/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Karuna Shanker, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-70, Ambedkar Colony, Behind Ward-24(3), Temple, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110074 (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Anzps6117Q Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 18.11.2016 Order This Is An Appeal By The Assessee Against The Order Dated 15.03.2016 Of Ld. Cit(A)-Ii, New Delhi. 2. During The Course Of Hearing Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Inspite Of The Fact That Notice Of Hearing Was Issued On 07.10.2016 By Rpad At The Address Mentioned In The Impugned Order & Form No. 36 Which Has Not Yet Been Returned Back By The Postal Authority. Earlier Also When The Case Was Fixed For Hearing On 04.10.2016 Nobody Was Present On Behalf Of The Assessee Neither Any Adjournment Was Sought. It, Therefore, Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested To Prosecute The Matter. 2 Karuna Shanker 3. The Law Aids Those Who Are Vigilant, Not Those Who Sleep Upon Their Rights. This Principle Is Embodied In Well Known Dictum, “Vigilantibus Et Non Dormientibus Jura Sub Veniunt’. Considering The Facts & Keeping In View The Provisions Of Rule 19(2) Of The Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules As Were Considered In The Case Of Cit Vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 Itd 320)(Del), We Treat This Appeal As Unadmitted.

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-III’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 3154/Del/2016 : Asstt. Year : 2006-07 Karuna Shanker, Vs Income Tax Officer, B-70, Ambedkar Colony, Behind Ward-24(3), Temple, Chattarpur, New Delhi-110001 New Delhi-110074 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. ANZPS6117Q Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 17.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 18.11.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 15.03.2016 of ld. CIT(A)-II, New Delhi. 2. During the course of hearing nobody was present on beh…

M/S. Vardhman Network Solutions Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2838/DEL/2014[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi18 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2838/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2009-10) Vardhman Network Vs Acit, Solutions P.Ltd., Central Circle-11, 333A, Sant Nagar, East Of New Delhi. Kailash, New Delhi-110065. Pan-Aaccv0972B (Appellant) (Respondent)

…n be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. 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. Multi Plan 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…

Mr. Surendra Pal Chauhan, Hapur vs. ITO, Hapur

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

ITA 535/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…dingly 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. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). I.T.A .No.-535/Del/2016 Surendra Pal Chauhan 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 then the assessee if so advised would be at libe…

Mr. Ram Narain Mehta, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2940/DEL/2016[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-2940/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2007-08) Ram Narain Mehta, Vs Ito, 203-204, Vikas Surya Plaza, Ward-19(3), Near Rani Bagh, Pitampura, New Delhi. Delhi-110034. Pan-Aizpm6013G (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. Multi Plan 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…

Cane Development Council, Shamli, Gorakhpur vs. JCIT, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 6504/DEL/2014[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-6504/Del/2014 (Assessment Year-2011-12) Cane Development Council, Shamli, Vs Jcit, C/O-Ds Kohli, Advocate, F-06, 1St Range-1, Floor, Narayan Tower, Gandhi Lane Muzaffarnagar. Golghar, Gorakhpur-273001. Pan-Aaalc0276E (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. Multi Plan 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. Country Wide Home & Farms (P) Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 3582/DEL/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi17 Nov 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.Anadi Nath Mishrai.T.A .No.-3582/Del/2012 (Assessment Year-2006-07) Country Wide Home & Farms P.Ltd., Vs Ito, H-22, Green Park, New Delhi-110016. Ward-19(3), Pan-Aabcc6792R New Delhi. (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. Multi Plan 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. Aerens Entertainment Zone Private Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2500/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Nov 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Sh. N. K. Saini, Am & Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘A’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, AM and Sh. Sudhanshu Srivastava, JM ITA No. 2500/Del/2013 : Asstt. Year : 2008-09 M/s Aerens Entertainment Zone Pvt. Vs Deputy Commissioner of Ltd., 6th Floor, Mahindra Towers, Income Tax, Circle-1(1), 2A, Bhikaji Cama Place, New Delhi-110002 New Delhi-110066 (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AACCA8583B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. S. K. Jain, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 10.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 15.11.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 27.02.2013 of ld. CIT(…

Sanmar Engineering Services Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2302/CHNY/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2301 & 2302/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05

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

…the ITA Nos.2301 & 2302/2016. :- 2 -: assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee are not interested in prosecuting the case. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), we dismiss these appeals filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. 2. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed Order pronounced on Monday, the 7th day of November, 2016, at Chennai. (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)) (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (N.R.S. GANESAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे…

Sanmar Engineering Services Ltd., Chennai vs. ACIT, Chennai

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

ITA 2301/CHNY/2016[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Chennai07 Nov 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri N.R.S. Ganesan & Shri Abraham P. George] आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. Nos.2301 & 2302/Mds/2016 "नधा"रण वष" /Assessment Years : 2003-04 & 2004-05

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

…the ITA Nos.2301 & 2302/2016. :- 2 -: assessee. In the circumstances, we are of the opinion that the assessee are not interested in prosecuting the case. Following the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan (India) Ltd. (38 ITD 320) (Del), we dismiss these appeals filed by the assessee, for non-prosecution. 2. In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed Order pronounced on Monday, the 7th day of November, 2016, at Chennai. (एन.आर.एस. गणेशन)) (अ"ाहम पी. जॉज") (N.R.S. GANESAN) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) लेखा सद"य/ACCOUNTANT MEMBER "या"यक सद"य/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे…

Shri Madan Lal Chaudhary, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2976/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…hat the assessee who has neither chosen to represent himself and not made any effort to cure the defect, is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan 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. Rst Tubes Pvt. Ltd., Ghaziabad vs. JCIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 5634/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi07 Nov 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-5634/Del/2015 (Assessment Year-2010-11) Rst Tubes Pvt.Ltd., Vs Jcit, C/O-Akhilesh Kumar, Advocate, Range-2, Chamber No.-206-07, Ansal Ghaziabad. “Satyam”, Rdc Raj Nagar, Ghaziabad. Pan-Aadcr8046F (Appellant) (Respondent)

…the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. Support is drawn from the order of the Tribunals in Commissioner of Income-Tax vs. Multi Plan India (P) Ltd.; 38 ITD 320 (Del) and Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P). 4. 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…

Bala Pritam Fastners Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2021/DEL/2016[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi03 Nov 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2005-06 Bala Pritam Fastners Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, H-665/8, Govindpuri, Ward-2(3), Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaccb4810A

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2005-06 Bala Pritam Fastners Co. Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, H-665/8, Govindpuri, Ward-2(3), Kalkaji, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AACCB4810A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri N.K. Bansal, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 03.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 03.11.2016 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 17.02.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2005-06. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeare…

Smt. Saroj Bala, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

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

ITA 5138/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5138/Del/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Saroj Bala Vs Ito W/O, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ward-2(3) House No. 1351, Sector-16 Fridabad Faridabad Adjpb2395M (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR

…1 IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-3’, NEW DELHI Before SH. N. K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No. 5138/DEL/2015 : Asstt. Year : 2009-10 Saroj Bala Vs ITO W/o, Sh. Ashok Kumar, Ward-2(3) House No. 1351, Sector-16 Fridabad Faridabad ADJPB2395M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. Anil Sharma, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 02.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 02.11.2016 ORDER Per N. K. Saini, AM: This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 4/6/2015 passed by CIT(A)-Faridabad. 2. Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 2/8/2016 and then again on 1…

Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 4994/DEL/2011[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi02 Nov 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal, Am & Shri Kuldip Singh, Jm Assessment Year : 2007-08 Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, A-27, Mohan Co-Operative Indl. Estate, Circle-16(1), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Aaact4902H

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR
Section 143(3)Section 144C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : I-1 : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM & SHRI KULDIP SINGH, JM Assessment Year : 2007-08 Transwitch India Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, A-27, Mohan Co-operative Indl. Estate, Circle-16(1), Mathura Road, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AAACT4902H (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Amrendra Kumar, CIT, DR Date of Hearing : 02.11.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 02.11.2016 ORDER PER R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the final assessment order passed by the AO on 25.8.2011 u/s 143(3) read with section 144C of the Income-t…

S. L. Roy & Sons, Durgapur vs. ACIT, Cir-2, Durgapur

In the result, both appeals filed by the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 227/KOL/2015[2005-2006]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Oct 2016AY 2005-2006
For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Pradip Mondal, 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…