M/s. Pushpak Auto Centre, Bhiwani V. ITO, Bhiwani

ITA 1288/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 81569 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 17 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 21-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 21-08-2014
• Assessment Year: 2003-2004
• Appeal Filed On: 05-03-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.1288/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04) M/S. PUSHPAK AUTO CENTRE, VS. ITO, WARD 2, VILLAGE JHUMPA, BHIWANI. DISTT. BHIWANI. (PAN : AAGFP0820M) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI MANOJ KUMAR CHOPRA, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS), ROHTAK DATED 22.01.2013 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2003-04. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 21.08.2014 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 19.02.2014, THE M ATTER WAS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEE AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED THE NEX T DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 21.08.2014. 3. 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. DE CISIONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF T HE APPEALS IN PRESENT ITA NO.1288/DEL./2013 2 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 RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISH ED SO FAR. ' 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 CORRECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN TH E MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 7. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMI SSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 21 ST DAY OF AUGUST, 2014 TS ITA NO.1288/DEL./2013 3 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), ROHTAK. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.