Shri Sunil Jhaveri, New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2851/DEL/2010

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 90897 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 year(s) 10 month(s) 7 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 15-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 25-05-2017
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 08-06-2010
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH G , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI R. S. SYAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A. T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 2851/DEL/2010 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 SHRI SUNIL JHAVERI, VS. ITO, OSD, RANGE 5, THROUGH SH. RASIK MAKKAR, CA NEW DELHI N-59, GREATER KAILASH I, NEW DELHI-110 048 GIR / PAN:ADMPJ6730B (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 15.04.2015 ORDER PER R. S. SYAL, AM: THIS APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE WAS FILED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT(A) VIII, NEW DELHI DATED 29.03.2010 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS RAISED SEVERAL GROUNDS OF APPEA L AND THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HARING ON 09.08.2010, WHICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 01.12.2010 ON THE REQUEST OF LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE. THE DATE OF HEARING WAS FURTHER ADJOURNED TO 19.01.2011, 25.04.2011, 26.04.2011, 18 .07.2011, 5.12.2011 AND 12.04.2012 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF LD. COUNSE L FOR THE ASSESSEE. ON 12.04.2012 ALSO THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 29.08. 2012, 04.02.2013, 29.04.2013, 12.04.2014 10.03.2015 AND LASTLY FOR 15 .04.2015 ON THE WRITTEN REQUESTS OF LD. A.R., WHICH DATES HAVE DULY BEEN NO TED BY LD. COUNSEL FOR ITA NO.2852/DEL/2010 2 THE ASSESSEE. ON 15.04.2015 ALSO, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BE EN RECEIVED. IT IS NOTED THAT SUFFICIENT OPPORTUNITIES HAVE BEEN GIVEN TO TH E ASSESSEE TO PURSUE HIS CASE BUT THE ASSESSEE / LD. A.R. COULD NOT TURN UP TO ARGUE HIS CASE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PROSECUTION OF ITS APPEAL AND THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS UNADMITTED AS MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT APPEAL IS ADMITT ED. WE GET SUPPORT 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 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 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). ITA NO.2852/DEL/2010 3 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 IT CAN DEMONSTRATE THAT IT 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 15 TH DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD./- SD./- ( A. T. VARKEY) (R. S. SYAL) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 15 TH APRIL, 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) S.NO. DETAILS DATE INITIALS DESIGNATION 1 DRAFT DICTATED ON 15/4 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 15/4 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 15/4 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 15/4 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 15/4 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