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 367,181 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.

Ms Anju Dhawan, New Delhi vs. Assessing Officer, New Delhi

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

ITA 2163/DEL/2016[2009-10]Status: PendingITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2009-10 Anju Dhawan, Vs. Assessing Officer, 80-A, Ignou, Maidan Garhi, Ward-23(4), Neb Sarai, New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan : Afzpd0732L

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2009-10 Anju Dhawan, Vs. Assessing Officer, 80-A, IGNOU, Maidan Garhi, Ward-23(4), Neb Sarai, New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN : AFZPD0732L (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.9.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 29.9.2016 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 26.2.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2009-10. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeared…

M/S. Moolchand Awana, Noida vs. ITO, Noida

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

ITA 1753/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi29 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2010-11 Moolchand Awana, Vs. Ito, B-93, Sector-27, Ward 1(2), Noida. Noida. Pan : Adppa8835M

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2010-11 Moolchand Awana, Vs. ITO, B-93, Sector-27, Ward 1(2), Noida. Noida. PAN : ADPPA8835M (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 29.9.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 29.9.2016 ORDER This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 27.1.2016 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 assessee. The assessee…

M/S Evloution Overnite Sports and Entertainment Management Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 12(3), Kolkata.

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 2233/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata28 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Sallong Yaden, Addl. CIT, DR
Section 143(3)

…e is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as none is present before us at the time of hearing. Hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 4. Order is pronounced in the open court. (P.M.Jagtap) Judicial Member Dated : 26th September, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) 2 Evloution Overnite Sports& Entertainment Management Pvt. Ltd.., AY 2007-08 Copy of the order forwarded to: APPELLANT – Evloution Overnite Sports & Entertainment Management 1.…

Manish D. Savant, Mumbai vs. ITO 11(3)(1), Mumbai

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

ITA 6988/MUM/2012[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai28 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri D. Karunakara Rao & Shri Ravish Sood

For Appellant: Shri B.V. JhaveriFor Respondent: Miss Anupama Singh, CIT-DR
Section 144Section 250(6)

…es (para 1 of the CIT (A) order is relevant in this regard) and assessee did not comply with the same. Eventually, CIT (A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee applying the decision of the Delhi Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt Ltd (38 ITD 320) (Del.). Aggrieved, assessee filed the present appeal before us. 4. During the proceedings before us, Ld Counsel for the assessee pleaded that the assessee is very much interested in pursuing the appeal. Referring to the said noticed, Ld Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is “change of address” of the assessee. Referring to the assessme…

Swastik Builders & Developers, Meerut vs. CIT, Meerut

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

ITA 3006/DEL/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi28 Sept 2016AY 2008-09

…e is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 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 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…

Msx Mall Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. DCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2216/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi27 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2006-07 Msx Mall Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Dcit, C/O R.K. Tuli & Associates, Cas, Central Circle-6(1), 11/37, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. Pan : Aabcn8537B

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2006-07 MSX Mall Pvt. Ltd., Vs. DCIT, C/o R.K. Tuli & Associates, CAs, Central Circle-6(1), 11/37, Ground Floor, New Delhi. Old Rajinder Nagar, New Delhi. PAN : AABCN8537B (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : None Respondent by: Shri Rajesh Kumar, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 27.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement: 27.09.2016 ORDER PER SHRI R.S. SYAL, AM: This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 16.02.2016 in relation to Assessment Year 2006-07. 2. When…

Mr. Gurmeet Singh, Ghaziabad vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 2522/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

…inion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address. 3. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan Page 1 of 2 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 this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose…

M/S. Rambhu Kumar Raj, New Delhi vs. JCIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 2505/DEL/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

…dress. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose…

Smt. Neeta Agarwal, Muzaffarnagar vs. ITO, Muzaffarnagar

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

ITA 2488/DEL/2016[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi22 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhua.Y. : 2006-07

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Umesh Chander Dubey, Sr. DR

…dress. In view of above, it is thus inferred that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of her appeal. 4. Having regard to Rule 19(2) of ITAT Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd. : 38 ITD 320 (Delhi) and Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court’s decision in Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT; 223 ITR 480 (MP), I treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. I would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpose…

Aachman Vanijya Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-4(3), Kolkata

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

ITA 513/KOL/2016[2011-2012]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 2016AY 2011-2012

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 513/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Aachman Vanijya (P)Ltd. -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aacca 5165 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : Shri S.M.Sarfarazut Tauheed, Jcit

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri S.M.Sarfarazut Tauheed, JCIT

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “A” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 513/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2011-12 Aachman Vanijya (P)Ltd. -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-4(3), Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AACCA 5165 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri S.M.Sarfarazut Tauheed, JCIT Date of Hearing : 21.09.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016. ORDER Per Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 03.03.2016 of CIT(A)- 16, Kolkata relating to AY 2011-12. 2. The appeal by the assessee was fix…

Anit Prakash Khairari, Kolkata vs. ITO, WD-35(2), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 822/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata21 Sept 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 September 21, 2016. (P.M…

DCIT, New Delhi vs. Shri Sanjay Taneja, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6380/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt. Diva Singhm/S. Rajan Suri (Huf), Vs. Acit, Circle 32 (1), M – 12, Jangpura Extension, New Delhi. New Delhi – 110 014. (Pan : Aajhr1971G) (Applicant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri F.R. Meena, Senior DR

…assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly, the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. 2 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). It may be further noted that till the date of passing of this order, no representation or Power of Attorney in favour of counsel had been filed despite the fact that dismissed in limine on the ground was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court. 3. Before part…

M/S. Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 5881/DEL/2014[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Sh. N. K. Sainiita No. 5881/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-23, Sudarshan Park, Moti Nagar, Ward-1(2), Delhi-110015 New Delhi (Appellant) (Respondent) Pan No. Aaaca2028B Assessee By : None Revenue By : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 Order

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH ‘SMC-1’, NEW DELHI Before Sh. N. K. Saini, Accountant Member ITA No. 5881/Del/2014 : Asstt. Year : 2003-04 Adarsh Kanch Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Vs Income Tax Officer, C-23, Sudarshan Park, Moti Nagar, Ward-1(2), Delhi-110015 New Delhi (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) PAN No. AAACA2028B Assessee by : None Revenue by : Sh. F. R. Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.09.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.09.2016 ORDER This is an appeal by the assessee against the order dated 07.01.2014 of ld. CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi. 2. Earlier this case was fixed for hearing on 23.06.2016 and was adjou…

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

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

ITA 3842/DEL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Sept 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2006-07 Ms. Sangeeta Goyal, M-90, Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward- Greater Kailash-Ii, New 23(2), New Delhi Delhi Pan : Adppg7309A (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant By None Respondent By Sh. N.K. Bansal, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing 20.09.2016 Date Of Pronouncement 21.09.2016 Order Per O.P. Kant, A.M.: The Present Appeal, By The Assessee, Is Directed Against The Order Of Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)- Xxiii, New Delhi, Dated 21.03.2013 For Assessment Year 2006- 07. 2. This Is The Recalled Matter Which Was Dismissed Vide Order Of Itat Dated 19.12.2013 For Want Of Prosecution As Non- Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee Despite Issuance Of Notice Regarding Next Date Of Hearing. The Matter Was Recalled Vide Order Of Itat Dated 05.01.2015 Passed In M.A. No. 140/Del/2014. Thereafter, On 22.12.2015, When The Case

…n that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 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 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…

Subhadra Commercial Pvt. Ltd., Durgapur vs. A.C.I.T, Circle-2, Durgapur

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

ITA 2395/KOL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Sept 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi

For Appellant: M/s. Subhadra Commercial Pvt. Ltd G.TFor Respondent: The ACIT,Cir-2, Durgapur

…t appears that the assessee is not interested 1 ITA No. 2395/Kol/2013-B-JM M.P- Subhadra Commercial P.Ltd in prosecuting his case. In view of the above, following the decisions of the ITAT, Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan India (P) Limited reported in 38 ITD 320(Del) and Hon’ble M.P High Court in the case of Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar Vs. CWT reported in (223 ITR 480(MP), we dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine for want of prosecution. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. Order Pronounced in the Open Court on 20-09-2016. WASEEM AHMED S.S.VISWANETHRA RAVI ACCOUNT…

Smt. Mansi Rastogi, Delhi vs. ITO, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 567/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singhi.T.A .No.-567/Del/2016 (Assessment Year-2011-12)

…assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. In the aforementioned facts and circumstances, the assessee’s appeal 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). In the said case while dismissing the reference Page 1 of 2 made at the instance of the assessee in default the Hon’ble Court made following observations in their order- “If the party, at whose instance the reference is made, fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking st…

Nav Bharat Enterprises, Delhi vs. Ac It, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 4684/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…t the assessee is not serious in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly 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). It may be further noted that till the date of passing of this order, no request for adjournment has been placed by the Registry. 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 d…

Mr. S.K. Gupta, New Delhi vs. ACIT, New Delhi

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

ITA 1612/DEL/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

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

…that assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeals. 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 considered in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Ltd., (38 ITD 320)(Del), the assessee’s appeals are 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 p…

M/S Engel India Machines & Tools (1987) Ltd (Now Known As M/S - Emt Megtherm Pvt Ltd), Kolkata vs. D.C.I.T Cir - 2, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed

ITA 1783/KOL/2013[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata15 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Shri Waseem Ahmed, Am & Shri K. Narasimha Chary, Jm]

For Appellant: N o n eFor Respondent: Shri Anup Chatterjee, JCIT, Sr. DR
Section 143(3)

…e is not interested in prosecuting the appeal as none is present before us at the time of hearing. Hence, the appeal of assessee is dismissed for non-prosecution applying the decision of Hon’ble Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT vs. Multiplan India Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320. 3. In the result, the appeal of assessee is dismissed. 4. Order is pronounced in the open court. (Waseem Ahmed) Judicial Member Dated : 15th September, 2016 Jd.(Sr.P.S.) 2 Engel India Machines & Tools., AY 2007-08 Copy of the order forwarded to: APPELLANT – M/s. Engel India Machines & Tools-(1987) Ltd. (Now 1. known as EMT Megathem Pvt. Ltd.…

Rajender Yadav, Ghaziabad vs. ACIT, Ghaziabad

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

ITA 2108/DEL/2016[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi15 Sept 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Shri H.S. Sidhu & Shri L.P. Sahua.Y. : 2011-12

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Sh. Amrit Lal, Sr. DR

…pinion, no useful purpose would be served to send the notice again and again on the same address. Page 1 of 2 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), we treat this appeal as unadmitted and dismiss the same. We would like to clarify that subsequently if the assessee explains the reasons for non appearance and if the Bench is so satisfied, the matter may be recalled for the purpo…