TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2015 (4) TMI 146
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....nt year. The appeal was decided by the ITAT by order dated 11.02.2009 in assessee's favour wherein the CIT(A)'s order which had dismissed the assessee's appeal relying on the case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 38 ITD 320 (Del.) and the judgement of the Hon'ble M.P. High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P) had been set aside and the issue was restored to the AO. This decision of the ITAT was set aside by the Jurisdictional High Court and the matter remanded back to the ITAT. Pursuant to this direction the appeal has been listed for hearing on various dates. The record shows that on the last date of hearing i.e 28.11.2013 adjournment was sought on behalf of the assessee which....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ct and unjustified in not deciding the appeal on merits and on grounds and adopting a soft way by dismissing the appeal even though without discussing the grounds taken in the appeal." 2. The record shows that the impugned order was an ex-parte order as despite repeated notices the assessee apart from seeking adjournments did not advance any arguments or place any material or evidence in support of its claim. 3. A perusal of the record shows that the assessee filed a return declaring an income of Rs. 7,42,351/- on 26.10.2005 which was processed u/s 143(1) and selected for scrutiny subsequently by issuance of notice u/s 143(2) dated 21.04.2006 as per the finding given in the assessment order. As per the assessment order various notices....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ournment shall be granted. On 27.03.2008 again neither anybody attended nor any written submission filed. Till to-day i.e.31.03.2008 neither any body attended nor any communication received from the appellant. Thus, it clearly shows that the appellant is not interested in pursuing the appeal. Hence, following the decision of ITAT Delhi Bench in the case of Multiplan (India) Ltd. 38 ITR 320 (Del.) and the judgement of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Late Tukoji Rao Holkar 223 ITR 480 (MP), the appeal is hereby dismissed for want of prosecution by the appellant. 4. Before parting, it may also be mentioned that the appellant has not furnished any evidence or detail during assessment proceeding and the A.O. had ma....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....he statutory mandate has not been complied with as no effort has been made to set out the points for determination. Consequently nor have the reasons for arriving at the decision been set out. 5.1. We are of the view that the dismissal of the appeal relying upon the decision of ITAT in the case of Multi Plan and the judgement of the M.P High Court in the case of Estate of Late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT: 223 ITR 480 (M.P) does not meet the statutory requirements. We have taken note of the order of the Coordinate Bench which was set aside by the Jurisdictional High Court wherein prayer of the assessee that adequate opportunity was not given during the assessment proceedings was accepted and the issue was set aside to the file of the AO. The....