Ganesh Roller Flour Mills, V. ITO Ward-2 (1),

ITA 1538/DEL/2008

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77722 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 44 year(s) 4 month(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 01-01-1970
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.69/DEL./2006 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98) GANESH ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, VS. ITO, WARD 2 (3), MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. MUZAFFARNAGAR. (PAN : AABFG7319P) ITA NO.1538/DEL./2008 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 1997-98) GANESH ROLLER FLOUR MILLS, VS. ITO, WARD 2 (1), MEERUT ROAD, MUZAFFARNAGAR. MUZAFFARNAGAR. (PAN : AABFG7319P) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THESE APPEALS AGAINST THE OR DER OF CIT (APPEALS), MUZAFFARNAGAR DATED 08.10.2005 AND 14.02.2008 FOR T HE ASSESSMENT YEAR 1997-98. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 20.05.2014 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 EARLIER OCCASIONS, I.E. 29.07.2010, 27.09.20 10, 25.11.2010, 07.06.2011, 27.01.2012, ITA NO.69/DEL./2006 ITA NO.1538/DEL./2008 2 09.05.2012, 03.01.2013 AND 14.08.2013, THE MATTER W AS ADJOURNED ON THE REQUEST OF THE ASSESSEES COUNSEL OR DUE TO NON-APPEARANCE AND A N OTICE OF HEARING DATED 10.02.2014 SENT 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 RULE 19 A OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT ON THE ASSESSEE. 3. RULE 19 OF THE IT AT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TERMS: 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 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 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 ITA NO.69/DEL./2006 ITA NO.1538/DEL./2008 3 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. ' 5. THUS, THE ITAT IN THE CASE MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES NOT MA KE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON- ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSES SEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS I NADMISSIBLE 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 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 20 TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (A.T. VARKEY) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 20 TH DAY OF MAY, 2014 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MUZAFFARNAGAR. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.