M/s. Senior Builders Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 145/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 14520114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 1 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 25-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 23-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2000-2001
• Appeal Filed On: 08-01-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHANDRA
• Keywords: Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 1444/DEL/2012 & 145/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2003-04 & 2000-2001 RESPECTIVELY M/S. SENIOR BUILDER LTD., VS. DCIT, CIRCLE 8(1), B-109, DEENCE COLONY, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI GIR / PAN: AAACS9920J (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA, CIT DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.02.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 25.02.2015 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THESE ARE TWO APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST SE PARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 02.01.2012 AND 20./10.2012 RESPECTIVEL Y. FROM THE RECORDS, WE FIND THAT ON 12.08.2014, THE APPEALS WERE ADJOUR NED AT THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE AND DATE OF HEARING WAS DULY COMMUNICATED TO HIM. AT THE TIME OF HEARING, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WERE PASSED OVER. IN THE 2 ND ROUND ALSO, NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE LD. D.R. THEREFORE REQUESTED FOR DISMISSAL OF APPEALS. LD. D.R. ALSO REQUESTED THAT IN THE ITA NO.1444/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 145/DEL/2013 2 DISMISSAL ORDERS, IT SHOULD NOT BE MENTIONED THAT A SSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE SAID ORDERS. 2. WE HAVE HEARD LD. D.R. HOWEVER, WE ARE NOT IN AG REEMENT WITH THE REQUEST OF LD. D.R. THAT IN THE ORDER, IT SHOULD NO T BE MENTIONED THAT ASSESSEE IS AT LIBERTY TO FILE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDERS AS IN OUR OPINION, RIGHT OF HEARING IS AN IMPORTANT RULE OF NATURAL JUSTICE AND IF ASSESSEE ON THE BASIS OF SOME EVIDENCE COULD DEMONSTRATE THAT ABSENCE AT THE TIME OF HEARING WAS DUE TO GENUINE REASONS, IT HAS EVERY RIGHT TO BE HE AD ON MERITS. HOWEVER, WE DISMISS THE APPEALS FOR NON PROSECUTION. WE GET SU PPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING CASE LAWS: 3. 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 THE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PARTLY DUE TO A PPEALS BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTE D. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUC H ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. TH ERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APPEAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME I S ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER AC COMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CAL LING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO APPEAL ME MO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUN AL RULES OR IS IT A LEGALLY VALID APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. THOSE POINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND TH AT IS WHY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RULE 1 9(2). ..... 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES ITA NO.1444/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 145/DEL/2013 3 REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON M ERITS AFTER HEARING 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 BE SIDES THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PRO PER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISHED SO FAR. ' 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE APPEALS TO B E UNADMITTED AND THEREFORE ARE DISMISSED. THE ASSESSEE IS HOWEVER GIVEN LIBERT Y TO FILE APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF SUCH ORDERS AND APPROPRIATE BENCH CAN REC ALL THE ORDERS IF THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO DEMONSTRATE SATISFACTORY REASON S FOR NOT APPEARING AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEALS ARE TECHNICALLY DIS MISSED AS UNADMITTED. 6. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 25 TH FEB., 2015 SD./- SD./- ( G. C. GUPTA) (T.S. KAPO OR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 25 TH FEB., 2015 SP COPY FORWARDED TO:- 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT (A)-, NEW DELHI. 5. THE DR, ITAT, LOKNAYAK BHAWAN, KHAN MARKET, NEW DEL HI. TRUE COPY. BY ORDER (ITAT, NEW DELHI). ITA NO.1444/DEL/2012 I.T.A.NO. 145/DEL/2013 4 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 24/2 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 24/2,25,25/2 SR. PS/PS 3 DRAFT PROPOSED & PLACED BEFORE THE SECOND MEMBER JM/AM 4 DRAFT DISCUSSED/APPROVED BY SECOND MEMBER AM/AM 5 APPROVED DRAFT COMES TO THE SR. PS/PS SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK SR. PS/PS 8 DATE ON WHICH THE FILE GOES TO HEAD CLERK 9 DATE ON WHICH FILE GOES TO A.R. 10 DATE OF DISPATCH OF ORDER