Sh. Anurag Birla, New Delhi V. ACIT, New Delhi

ITA 3974/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2014] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 77731 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 10 month(s) 27 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 22-05-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 15-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 25-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: Y KAKKAR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: A NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-3974/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2009-10) ANURAG BIRLA, C-37, HAUZ KHAS, NEW DELHI-110016. PAN-AADPB3556B (APPELLANT) VS ACIT, CIRCLE-24(1), NEW DELHI (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY Y.KAKKAR, DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DAT ED 25.04.2013 PASSED BY CIT(A)-XXIII, NEW DELHI PERTAINING TO 2 009-10 ASSESSMENT YEARS. 2. HOWEVER AT THE TIME OF HEARING NO ONE WAS PRESEN T ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE DESPITE THIS NEITH ER ANYONE IS PRESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN MOVED. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE NOTICE WAS SENT TO THE ASSESSEE ON 22.04.2014. THE SAME HAS N OT COME BACK UNSERVED. THUS IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 RULE 19A OF THE CPC READ WITH SE CTION 282 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIE NT ON THE ASSESSEE. IN THE AFORE- MENTIONED PECULIAR FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES, IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRES ENT APPEALS. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE C ONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TE RMS:- 2 I.T.A .NO.-3974/DEL/2013 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 THE MEM ORANDUM OF APPEAL TO THE RESPONDENT EITHER BEFORE OR WITH SUCH NOTICE. (2) THE ISSUE OF THE NOTICE REFERRED TO IN SUB-RULE (S) SHALL NOT BY ITSELF BE DEEMED TO MEAN THAT THE 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 ADMIS SIBILITY 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 EXPEDITIONS DISPOSAL OF T HE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PARTLY DUE TO APPEALS B EING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TI MES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PRO VISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEE N ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APPEAL IS PRESENT THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CO NCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVE D 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 THE SCRUT INY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS IT A LEGALLY VALID APPEAL UNDE R SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. THOSE POINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS WHY THE RULE PRESCRIBING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTI CE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE SIGNIFICANC E OF RULE 19(2). .. 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBU NAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER H EARING 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 BESIDES THERE WAS NO Q UESTION OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISH ED SO FAR . 5. THUS, THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF 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 DEFECTIVE AND THE A SSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE 3 I.T.A .NO.-3974/DEL/2013 SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE APPE AL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN TERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE APPEAL TO BE UNADMIT TED WITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND EXPLAINING THE REA SONS FOR ITS NON-APPEARANCE IF SO ADVISED AND PRAY FOR A RECALL OF THE ORDER AND A DJUDICATION ON MERITS. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPEN COURT. 7. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 22 TH OF MAY 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 22/05/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI