Shri Sandeep Aggarwal Prop., Punjab V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 2891/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 121 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 0058 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 20-05-2015
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 09-05-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RAMESH CHANDRA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI A.T. VARKEY: JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 2891/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YR: 2007-08 SANDEEP AGGARWAL VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, SUDERSHAN OVERSEAS, 5898, BASTI WARD 39(3), NEW DE LHI. HARPOOL SINGH,SADR BAZAR, DELHI. PAN: AAGPA 3419 H ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI RAMESH CHANDRA CIT(DR). DATE OF HEARING : 20-05-2015 DATE OF ORDER : 22-05-2015. O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M: : THIS APPEAL, BY THE ASSESSEE, IS DIRECTED AGAINST T HE ORDER DATED 28-02-2013 PASSED BY THE LD. CIT(A), XXVIII, NEW DELHI IN APPE AL NO. 112/2009-10, RELATING TO A.Y. 2009-10. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING FIXED FOR 20- 05-2015, DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE OF HEARING THROUGH RPAD AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF FORM NO. 36. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE C ONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TE RMS: 2 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 MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL TO THE RESPONDENT EITHER BEFOR E 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 (INDI A) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ASPECT OF ADMIS SIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: 4. A JUDICIAL BODY HAS CERTAIN INHERENT POWERS. DECISI ONS 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 UNADMITTED. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RUL ES SUPPORT SUCH ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD N OT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARI FIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APP EAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALS O 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 REAL LY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL 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 THAT IS WHY THE RULE PRES CRIBES THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. T HIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RULE 19(2). .. . 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFT ER 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 3 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 PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISHED 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 EXPLANATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING T HE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), I HOLD THE APP EAL TO BE UNADMITTED WITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPLICATION EXPLAINING ITS NON APPEARANCE BEFORE THE ITAT ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 6. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMIS SED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 22-05-2015. SD/- SD/- ( A.T. VARKEY ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 22-05-2015. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR