Indu Kapahi, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2629/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0056 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 2 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 20-05-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: T VASANTHAN

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH C, NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.2629 /DEL/2011 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2005-06 INDU KAPAHI, VS. ITO, WARD 43(1), DAO-67 W-40, GREATER KAILASH I, NEW DELHI NEW DELHI-110 048 GIR / PAN:AHYPK4343F (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI T. VASANTHAN, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 20.05.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 22.05.2015 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 04.02.2011 RAISING AS MANY AS 6 GROUNDS OF AP PEAL. THE APPEAL WAS FIRSTLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 25.07.2011 FOR WHICH N OTICE WELL IN ADVANCE WAS SENT, WHICH HAS NOT RETURNED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTME NT AND GIVING MORE OPPORTUNITY THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 01.12.2011 AND AGAIN TO 10.05.2012 AS BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 01.12.2011. ON 10.05.2012 BOTH THE PARTIES WERE PRESENT BUT THE HEARING WAS ADJOUR NED TO 03.10.2012 AND TO 05.11.2013 ON WHICH DATE ASSESSEES COUNSEL REQUEST ED FOR TIME AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 25.02.2014 ON WHICH DATE A LSO ASSESSEES COUNSEL SUBMITTED WRITTEN REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT. THE DAT E OF HEARING WAS ITA NO.2629/DEL/2011 2 ADJOURNED TO 27.05.2014 AND AGAIN TO 17.06.2014 FOR WANT OF TIME. SINCE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION ON 17.06.2014, THE HEARING W AS ADJOURNED TO 28.10.2014 AND AGAIN TO 02.03.2015 ON WHICH DATE AL SO WRITTEN REQUEST WAS SUBMITTED BY ASSESSEES COUNSEL AND THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 20.05.2015, WHICH DATE WAS INFORMED TO BOTH THE PAR TIES PRESENT IN THE OPEN COURT. ON 20.05.2015, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF O F THE ASSESSEE. 2. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE ASSESSE E IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF HIS APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS UNADMITTED AND IS DISMISSED AS MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT APPEAL IS ADMITTED. WE GET SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOW ING 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 APPEALS BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION O F MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTR ANEOUS 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 SUC H ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSE LF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APP EAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CONC ERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO AP PEAL MEMO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POI NTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARI OUS ITA NO.2629/DEL/2011 3 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 W HY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RULE 19(2). 4. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS TREATED AS UNADMITTED AND THEREFORE, IS DISMISSED. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE IS A T LIBERTY TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RECALL OF THE ORDER PROVIDED SHE CA N DEMONSTRATE THAT SHE WAS PREVENTED BY SUFFICIENT CAUSE FOR NOT APPEARING AT THE TIME OF HEARING. 5. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS D ISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 6. ORDER AS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ORALLY ON THE DATE OF HEARING IS PRONOUNCED IN WRITING ON THIS 22 ND MAY, 2015. SD./- SD./- ( G. C. GUPTA) (T.S. KAPOO R) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE:22 ND MAY, 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.2629/DEL/2011 4 S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 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 22/5/15 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 22/5 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 22/5 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