Sub Registrar, Uttar Pradesh V. DIT (I & CI), Lucknow

ITA 3645/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 364520114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 6 month(s) 24 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 31-12-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 06-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: RENUKA JAIN GUPTA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G: NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 3645/DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2010-11 SUB REGISTRAR, SHASWAN, MUNSIF CAMPUS, BILASNAGANJ BAZAR, SAHASWAN BUDAUN, UTTAR PRADESH. PAN NO. LKNO05571G VS. DIT(I & CI), LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SMT. RENUKA JAIN GUPTA , SR. DR O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF DIR ECTOR OF INCOME-TAX (I&CI), LUCKNOW DATED 26 TH MARCH, 2013 PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE INCOME TAX ACT RELATING TO A.Y. 2010-11. 2. AT THE TIME OF HEARING NONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF ASSESSEE THOUGH NOTICE WAS SENT THROUGH POST. WE FIND THAT IN AN IDENTICAL MATTER IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR, BILSI, VS. DIRECTOR OF I NDOME-TAX (I&CI) VIDE ITA NO. 3715/DEL/2013, THE TRIBUNAL HAS PASSED THE FOLL OWING ORDER: ITA NO. 3645/D/ 2013 2 ITA NO. 3715/D/2013 A.Y. 2011-12 SUB REGISTRAR BILSI, VS. DIRECTOR OF INCOME TAX (I &CI), UTTAR PRADESH. LUCKNOW. (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ORDER PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M. THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OFDIT( I&CI), LUCKNOW DATED 26.03.2013 PASSED U/S 271FA OF THE IN COME-TAX ACT, 1961, RELATING TO A.Y. 2010-11. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING FIXED FOR 12.12.2013. THE NOTICE OF HEARING DISPAT CHED TO THE ASSESSEE THROUGH ORDINARY POST ON 4.11.2013 HAS NOT BEEN RET URNED UNSERVED. THUS, IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 RULE 19A OF THE CPC READ W ITH SECTION 282 OF THE I.T. ACT, 1961, IT IS PRESUMED THAT THE ASSE SSEE HAS BEEN SERVED WITH THE NOTICE OF HEARING. NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURN MENT OF HEARING HAS ALSO BEEN RECEIVED. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE C ONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TE RMS: 19(1) THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOTIFY TO THE PARTIES SP ECIFYING 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-RUL E (1) SHALL NOT BY ITSELF BE DEEMED TO MEAN THAT THEN 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. DECISIONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIM ATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PARTLY DUE TO APPEAL BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS ANDLAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATI ONS. ITA NO. 3645/D/ 2013 3 THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIB UNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PROVISIONS O F RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUC H ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD N OT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RU LE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATIO N FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APPEAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGIST RY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVE D OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO APPEAL ME MO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POI NTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS IT A LEGA LLY VALID APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. THOSE P OINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEAR ING. AND THAT 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 19(2). . 5 . IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT. IT MAY BE STATED HERE THAT THE TRIBUNA L HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE BASIS OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADMISSION OF APPEA L U/S 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES 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 OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSE LF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROP ER ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN T ERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE AP PEAL TO BE UNADMITTED WITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPRO PRIATE APPLICATION ITA NO. 3645/D/ 2013 4 AND CORRECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THEN APPEAL.. 7. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMIS SED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12.12.2013. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (R.P. TOLANI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER 3. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE DECISION OF TRIBUNAL IN THE CASE OF SUB REGISTRAR BILSI, THE ASSESSEES APPEAL IS DISMISSED . ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 31/12/2013 SD/- SD/- (R.P. TOLANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED: 31/12/2013 *KAVITA COPY TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR, ITAT, NEW DELHI. TRUE COPY BY ORDER ASSISTANT REGISTRAR