M/s. Bolni Exim India Ltd., New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3217/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7537 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 6 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-12-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: B
• Next Hearing Date: 22-12-2014
• Assessment Year: 2004-2005
• Appeal Filed On: 21-06-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: POONAM KHAIRA SIDHU

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH B , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 3217& 3218/DEL/2012 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2004-05 & 2005-06 M/S. BOLNI EXIM INDIA P. LTD. NOW KNOWN AS M/S. KRISHNA INFORMEDIA LTD., VS. ACIT, H-108, IIND FLOOR, NEW ASIATIC BLDG., CENTRAL CI RCLE-9, CONNAUGHT PLACE, NEW DELHI-110 001 NEW DELHI GIR / PAN:AAACCB1167E (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SMT.POONAM KHAIRA, SIDHU, CIT DR ORDER PER BENCH: THESE APPEALS WERE FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST S EPARATE ORDERS OF LD. CIT(A) DATED 28.08.2012 & 05.03.2012. THESE APEP0A LS WERE ORIGINALLY FIXED FOR HEARING ON 28.03.2012 ON WHICH DATE APPEA LS WERE ADJOURNED TO 27.12.2012. ON 27.12.2012 AGAIN APPEALS WERE ADJO URNED TO 08.05.2013 ON WHICH DATE BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THEREFORE AGA IN APPEALS WERE ADJOURNED TO 03.10.2013. ON 03.10.2013, ASSESSEES COUNSEL AGAIN TOOK ADJOURNMENT AND THE CASE WAS ADJOURNED TO 03.03.201 4 ON WHICH DATE AGAIN BENCH DID NOT FUNCTION AND THE APPEALS GOT ADJOURNE D TO 04.10.2014 AND THEN AGAIN ADJOURNED TO 22.12.2014. THE NOTICES WERE SE NT THROUGH RPAD WELL IN ADVANCE AND THE CASES WERE LISTED FOR HEARING ON 22.12.2014 ON WHICH DATE ALSO NOBODY WAS PRESENT ON BEHALF OF ASSESSEE. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS INFERRED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PRO SECUTION OF ITS APPEALS. ITA NO.S3217,3218/DEL/2012 2 2. RULE 19 OF THE IT AT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TE RMS: 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 T HE MEMORANDUM 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 . ' 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 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. ' ITA NO.S3217,3218/DEL/2012 3 4. THUS, THE ITAT IN THE CASE MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES N OT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTI VE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THERE FORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN TERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. 5. 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 COR RECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 6. IN THESE TERMS, BOTH THE APPEALS ARE TECHNICALL Y DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. 7. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 ND DEC., 2014. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH ) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 22.12.2014. 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).