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.

Sgm Transways, Howrah vs. ITO, WD-56(1), Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1403/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 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 July 26, 2016. (P.M. Jag…

ITO, Ward-1, Haldia, Purba Medinipur vs. Sk. Aminul Islam, Purba Medinipur

In the result, the appeal of the revenue and cross objection of the assessee are dismissed for non-prosecution

ITA 690/KOL/2012[2008-2009]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2016AY 2008-2009

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 690/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1, -Vs.- Sk.Aminul Islam Haldia Purba Medinipur [Pan : Aappi 5098 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.No.62/Kol/2012 (A/O I.T.A No. 690/Kol/2012 ) Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sk.Aminul Islam -Vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Purba Medinipur Haldia [Pan : Aappi 5098 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Department : None For The Assessee : None Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 690/Kol/2012 Assessment Year : 2008-09 I.T.O., Ward-1, -vs.- Sk.Aminul Islam Haldia Purba Medinipur [PAN : AAPPI 5098 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) C.O.No.62/Kol/2012 (A/o I.T.A No. 690/Kol/2012 ) Assessment Year : 2008-09 Sk.Aminul Islam -vs.- I.T.O., Ward-1, Purba Medinipur Haldia [PAN : AAPPI 5098 F] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Department : None For the Assessee : None Date of Hearing : 26.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM ITA No.6…

ITO, WD-10(2), Kolkata vs. M/S R. P. Edible Oil Ltd., Kolkata

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

ITA 588/KOL/2009[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata26 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Hon’Ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, Am] I.T.A No. 588/Kol/2009 Assessment Year : 2004-05 I.T.O., Ward-10(2), -Vs.- M/S. R.P.Edible Oil Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [Pan : Aaecs 4337 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For The Appellant : None For The Respondent : None Date Of Hearing : 26.07.2016. Date Of Pronouncement : 26.07.2016. Order Per N.V.Vasudevan, Jm This Is An Appeal By The Revenue Against The Order Dated 19.01.2009 Of Cit(A)- Xxxii, Kolkata Relating To Ay 2004-05. 2. The Appeal By The Revenue Was Fixed For Hearing On Several Occasions. On Many Occasions Such As 27.09.2012, 16.09.2015, 14.01.2016, 15.03.2016, 19.05.2016, Notice Was Directed To Be Served Through The Dr. The Department Has Not Complied With The Directions Of The Tribunal. Today When The Case Was Called For Hearing None Appeared On Behalf Of The Department Nor Was Any Application For An Adjournment Was Filed By The Department. It Appears To Us That The Department Is Not Serious In Prosecuting This Appeal. Hence The Appeal Filed By The Revenue 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.”

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: None

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “C” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM & Dr.Arjun Lal Saini, AM] I.T.A No. 588/Kol/2009 Assessment Year : 2004-05 I.T.O., Ward-10(2), -vs.- M/s. R.P.Edible Oil Ltd. Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAECS 4337 H] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : None Date of Hearing : 26.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 26.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Revenue against the order dated 19.01.2009 of CIT(A)- XXXII, Kolkata relating to AY 2004-05. 2. The appeal by the revenue was fixed for hearing on several occasi…

Sh. Jagdish Chander Suneja, Gurgaon vs. ACIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 370/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…s in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only I.T.A .No.-370/Del/2014 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). 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 d…

M/S. K P PAN Flavours Pvt. Ltd., Kanpur vs. DCIT, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 359/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…s in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only I.T.A .No.-359/Del/2014 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). 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 d…

Vijay Laxmi Arora, New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2125/DEL/2014[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2004-05

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…14 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). 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 d…

Sh. Vijay Pal Singh Gulia vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2082/DEL/2014[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi26 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…14 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). 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 d…

Sankriti Sales (P) Ltd., Kolkata vs. The PCIT, Kolkata-3, Kolkata

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 417/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Shri P.M. Jagtap & Shri N.V. Vasudevan

Section 263

…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 July 25, 2016. (N.V. Va…

Swagatam Merchandise Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT, Cir-3, Kolkata

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

ITA 404/KOL/2016[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 2016AY 2010-2011

Bench: Hon’Ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, Am & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, Jm ] I.T.A No. 404/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR)
Section 263

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “D” BENCH : KOLKATA [Before Hon’ble Shri P.M.Jagtap, AM & Sri N.V.Vasudevan, JM ] I.T.A No. 404/Kol/2016 Assessment Year : 2010-11 Swagatam Merchandise (P)Ltd. -vs.- Pr.C.I.T.- 3, Kolkata Kolkata Kolkata [PAN : AAMCS 6590 C] (Respondent) (Appellant) For the Appellant : None For the Respondent : Shri G.Mallikarjuna, CIT(DR) Date of Hearing : 25.07.2016. Date of Pronouncement : 25.07.2016. ORDER Per N.V.Vasudevan, JM This is an appeal by the Assessee against the order dated 03.11.2015 of Pr.CIT- 3, Kolkata passed u/s 263 of the I.T.Act relating to AY 2010-11. 2. The cas…

M/S Hotel Tara, Birbhum vs. ACIT, Cir-Suri, Birbhum

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 748/KOL/2015[2010-2011]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata25 Jul 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 July 25, 2016. (P.M. Jag…

Sh. Arvind Kumar Nandal, Rohtak vs. ITO, Rohtak

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2420/DEL/2015[2011-12]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2011-12

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in limine. Support is I.T.A .No.-2420/Del/2015 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 d…

Ram Kishan, Hapur vs. ITO, Hapur

ITA 2317/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra :A.Y. 2009-10 Ram Kishan Vs. Income-Tax Officer, S/O Shri Mool Chand, Ward-2, Hapur. 153, Gyan Vatika, Railway Road, Pan: Aarpk 4998 E ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2016 Date Of Order : 25/07-2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. DR
Section 253

…dum of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice. (2)The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall not by itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted.” 4. The ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had occasion to consider the aspect of admissibility of appeal for hearing by observing as under: “4. A judicial body has certain inherent powers. Decisions are taken for the purpose of proper and expeditious disposal of the appeals in present climate of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of mind t…

Shri Chandra Prakash, Uttar Pradesh vs. ITO, Noida

ITA 2232/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra :A.Y. 2009-10 Chandra Prakash Vs. Income-Tax Officer, Vill. Badalpur, Dadri, Ward-3(1), Noida. Gautam Budh Nagar, Uttar Pradesh Pan: Adepp 5638 A ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 20-07-2016 Date Of Order : 25/07-2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. DR
Section 253

…ndum of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice. (2)The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall not by itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted.” 4. The ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had occasion to consider the aspect of admissibility of appeal for hearing by observing as under: “4. A judicial body has certain inherent powers. Decisions are taken for the purpose of proper and expeditious disposal of the appeals in present climate of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of mind t…

Abhishek Kumar, New Delhi vs. Income Tax Officer, New Delhi

ITA 2023/DEL/2015[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi25 Jul 2016AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri S.V. Mehrotra :A.Y. 2010-11 Abhishek Kumar Vs. Income-Tax Officer, A-67, Parwana Apartments, Ward 2(4), New Delhi. Mayur Vihar, Phase-I, New Delhi. Pan: Aokpk 1341 Q ( Appellant ) ( Respondent ) Appellant By : None Respondent By : Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 19-07-2016 Date Of Order : 25-07-2016. O R D E R Per S.V. Mehrotra, A.M:-

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri N.K. Bansal Sr. DR
Section 253

…dum of appeal to the respondent either before or with such notice. (2)The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (1) shall not by itself be deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted.” 4. The ITAT in the case of CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) had occasion to consider the aspect of admissibility of appeal for hearing by observing as under: “4. A judicial body has certain inherent powers. Decisions are taken for the purpose of proper and expeditious disposal of the appeals in present climate of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of mind t…

M/S. P.M. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

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

ITA 1717/DEL/2015[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi21 Jul 2016AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri R.S. Syalassessment Year : 2008-09 P.M. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs. Ito, 34, Sukhdev Vihar, Ward-14(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. Pan: Aaecp0672J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Mrs. Shaveta Nakra Datta, Sr. Dr Date Of Hearing : 21.07.2016 Date Of Pronouncement : 21.07.2016 Order This Appeal Filed By The Assessee Is Directed Against The Order Passed By The Cit(A) On 18.02.2014 In Relation To The Assessment Year 2008-09. 2. When The Matter Was Called Up For Hearing Today, No One Has Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. The Assessee Has Not Filed Any Adjournment Application Also. The Notice Of Hearing Sent To The Assessee Has Not Been Returned Unserved. In These Circumstances, It Appears That The Assessee Is Not Interested In Prosecuting Its Appeal. The Appeal Filed

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Mrs. Shaveta Nakra Datta, Sr. DR

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCHES : SMC-I : NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Assessment Year : 2008-09 P.M. Buildwell Pvt. Ltd., Vs. ITO, 34, Sukhdev Vihar, Ward-14(1), New Delhi. New Delhi. PAN: AAECP0672J (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee By : None Department By : Mrs. Shaveta Nakra Datta, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 21.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement : 21.07.2016 ORDER This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the CIT(A) on 18.02.2014 in relation to the assessment year 2008-09. 2. When the matter was called up for hearing today, no one has appeare…

Alex Merchants Pvt Ltd(Since Merged With Mani Suare Ltd), Kolkata vs. I.T.O WD - 12(1), Kolkata

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

ITA 1679/KOL/2013[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata20 Jul 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri P. M. Jagtap, A.M. & Shri S.S.Viswanethra Ravi, J.M.)

For Appellant: NoneFor Respondent: Shri Ghyas Uddin, JCIT, Sr.DR
Section 143(3)

…odied in well known dictum, “VIGILANTIBUS ET NON DORMIENTIBUS JURA SUB VENIUNT’. Considering the facts and 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. 4. Similar view has been taken by the Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT (223 ITR 480) wherein it has been 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 preparatio…

Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd, Mumbai vs. DCIT Cir 7(2), Mumbai

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

ITA 5512/MUM/2013[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Jul 2016AY 2005-06

Bench: Shri C.N. Prasad, Hon’Ble & Shri Rajendra, Hon’Blem/S. Sabero Organics Gujarat Ltd., Vs. Dcit, Circle-7(2), Bezzola Commercial Complex, Mumbai. A-Wing, 3Rd Floor, Suman Nagar, Sion-Trombay Road, Chembur, Mumbai - 71 Pan No. Aabcs 5313 C (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Mrs. Vasanti Patel – AdvFor Respondent: Shri N. Sathya Moorthy - DR
Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 350Section 36Section 68

…and the appeal is admitted for hearing. 5 7. Coming to the additions sustained by the ld. CIT(A), we find from the order of the ld. CIT(A), who passed exparte order applying the decision of the Delhi Tribunal in the case of CIT v. Multiplan India Ltd. (1991) 38 ITD 320 (Del). In the interest of justice, we restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication on merits in accordance with law. The assessee shall cooperate in the proceedings before the ld. CIT(A) without taking adjournments without cause. 8. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order Pr…

Sh. Satish Kumar, Gurgaon vs. ITO, Gurgaon

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 2426/DEL/2015[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh

…s in pursuing the appeal filed. Accordingly the only alternative left is to dismiss the appeal of the assessee in I.T.A .No.-2426/Del/2015 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 d…

Mr. Ajay Singhal, Delhi vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 6520/DEL/2013[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Sh.L.P.Sahu

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: ‘D’ NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH.L.P.SAHU, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .No.-6520/Del/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR-2009-10) Ajay Singhal, Vs ITO, C/o-GMB & Associates, Ward-39(3), D-58A, IInd Floor, Main Vikas Marg, C.R. Building, Near Metro Pillar No.33, Laxmi Nagar, I.P.Estate, Delhi-110092. New Delhi PAN-AQBPS3976L (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) Assessee by None Revenue by Sh. F.R.Meena, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 18.07.2016 Date of Pronouncement 19.07.2016 ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM The present appeal has been filed by the assessee assailing the corr…

Mr. Jagdev, Faridabad vs. ITO, Faridabad

In the result, appeal of the Assessee dismissed

ITA 5671/DEL/2013[2003-04]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi19 Jul 2016AY 2003-04

Bench: Shri Bhavnesh Saini & Shri Prashant Maharishi

For Appellant: -None-For Respondent: Smt. Naina Soin Kapil, Sr. D.R

…l of the assessee is liable to be dismissed as un- admitted. 3. In view of the above and having regard to Rule 19(2) of Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules and following various decisions of Delhi Bench of the Tribunal including that of Multiplan India Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.); Hon’ble Madhya Pradesh High Court decision in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT 223 ITR 480 (MP), and also the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. B. Bhattachargee & Another (118 ITR 461 at page 477-478) wherein their Lordships held that “the appeal does 3 ITA.No.5671/Del./2013 Shri Jagdev, Village A…