Sh. Sahil Batra, New Delhi V. ITO,

ITA 118/DEL/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2696 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 11 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 05-01-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 05-01-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 06-01-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: ANIMA BARNWAL SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.118/DEL./2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI SAHIL BATRA, VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER, D 242, DEFENCE COLONY, WARD 32 (4), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. (PAN : AOMPB1055Q) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SMT. ANIMA BARNWAL, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 05.01.2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 05.01.2016 O R D E R PER A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS)- XXVI, NEW DELHI DATED 22.10.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2009-10. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 05.01.2016 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. A NOTICE OF HEARING SE NT ON 08.12.2015 FIXING THE HEARING FOR 05.01.2016 AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO. 36 HAS NOT BEEN RETURNED UNSERVED . THUS, IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 ITA NO.118/DEL./2014 2 RULE 19A OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT ON THE ASSES SEE. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TE RMS: 19(1) THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOTIFY TO THE PARTIES SPE CIFYING THE DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SEND A COPY OF THE MEM ORANDUM 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 A DMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : '4. A JUDICIAL BODY HAS CERTAIN INHERENT POWERS. DE CISIONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF T HE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PARTLY DUE TO APPEALS B EING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALS O AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUCH ACTION BY STA TING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEE N ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APPEAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTE R THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS AR E RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE PAPERS WHIC H ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO APPEAL MEMO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY TH E SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS IT A LEGALLY VALID A PPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. THOSE POINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS WHY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE SI GNIFICANCE OF RULE 19(2). ..... 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER H EARING THE RESPONDENT. IT MAY BE STATED HERE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE BASIS OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADMISSION OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES THERE WAS NO Q UESTION OF HEARING THE ITA NO.118/DEL./2014 3 RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISH ED SO FAR. ' 5. THUS, THE ITAT IN THE CASE MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES N OT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTI VE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THERE FORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN TERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE APPEAL TO BE UNADMITTED WITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND CORREC T THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARI NG OF THE APPEAL. 7. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMI SSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (N.K. SAINI) (A.T. VARKEY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 5 TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2016 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXVI, NEW DELHI. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.