Mr. Neeraj Singh Sirohi, Hapur V. ITO, Hapur

ITA 4280/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 428020114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 7 month(s) 28 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 13-03-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 10-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 15-07-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: P DAM KANUNJHA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH E , NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI G. C. GUPTA, HONBLE VICE PRESIDENT, AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO.4280 /DEL/2013 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10 NEERAJ SINGH SIROHI, VS. ITO, WARD I, HAPUR I/I-624, FCI COLONY, SRI NAGAR, HAPUR GIR / PAN:AQNPS9557M (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI P DAM KANUNJHA, SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.03.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.03.2013 ORDER PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM: THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE AGAINST THE OR DER OF LD. CIT(A), GHAZIABAD DATED 17.04.2013. 2. THE APPEAL WAS FIXED FOR HEARING ON 06.01.2014 W HICH WAS ADJOURNED TO 06.05.2014 ON THE WRITTEN REQUEST OF LD. D.R. ON WHICH DATE, THE BENCH HAD NOT WORKED AND THE CASE WAS FIXED FOR HEARING O N 14.10.2014. ON 14.10.2014, THE HEARING WAS ADJOURNED TO 11.03.2015 ON WRITTEN REQUEST OF LD. A.R. AND BOTH THE PARTIES WERE INFORMED IN THE OPEN COURT ABOUT THIS DATE OF HEARING. ON 11.03.2015, NONE WAS PRESENT ON BE HALF OF ASSESSEE NOR ANY APPLICATION FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN RECEIVED. IN VIEW OF ABOVE, IT IS IMPLIED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROS ECUTION OF HIS APPEAL AND ITA NO.4280/DEL/2013 2 THEREFORE, THE APPEAL FILED BY ASSESSEE IS UNADMITT ED AS MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN THAT APPEAL IS ADMITTED. WE GET SUPP ORT 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). 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 ITA NO.4280/DEL/2013 3 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 13 TH DAY OF MARCH, 2015. SD./- SD./- ( G. C. GUPTA) (T.S. KAPOOR) VICE PRESIDENT ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATE: 13 TH MARCH, 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 11/3 SR. PS/PS 2 DRAFT PLACED BEFORE AUTHOR 12/3 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 13/3 SR. PS/PS 6 KEPT FOR PRONOUNCEMENT 13/3 SR. PS/PS 7 FILE SENT TO BENCH CLERK 13/3 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