Rajendra Kumar Gogia, Meerut V. ITO, Meerut

ITA 4435/DEL/2012

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 86728 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 5 month(s) 30 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 16-02-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Next Hearing Date: 16-02-2015
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 17-08-2012
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: VIKRAM SAHAY SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH F : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI C.M. GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4435/DEL./2012 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) SHRI RAJENDRA KUMAR GOGIA, VS. ITO, WARD 2 (2), 259 A, SADAR KABARI BAZAR, MEERUT. MEERUT. (PAN : AFPPG3256E) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI VIKRAM SAHAY, SENIOR DR ORDER PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS), MEERUT DATED 01.05.2012 FOR THE ASSESSME NT YEAR 2006-07. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 16.02.2015 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE NOTICE OF HEA RING DATED 26.11.2014 FIXING THE HEARING FOR 16.02.2015 SENT AT THE ADDRE SS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO. 36 HAS NOT BEE N RETURNED UNSERVED. THUS, IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 RULE 19A OF THE CPC READ W ITH SECTION 282 OF THE ITA NO.4435/DEL./2012 2 INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEM ED SUFFICIENT ON THE ASSESSEE. 3. 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 A DMITTED. ' 4. 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 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 CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APPEAL IS PR ESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTR Y VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF N OT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIR ED TO BE ATTACHED TO APPEAL MEMO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY I S MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS IT A LEGALLY VALID A PPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. THOSE POINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONS IDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS WHY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THA T 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 R EFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEA L ON MERITS 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 TRI BUNAL RULES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADMISSION OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 O F THE ACT BESIDES ITA NO.4435/DEL./2012 3 THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SIN CE 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 D OES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTI VE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. T HEREFORE, THE APPEAL 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 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. 7. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMI SSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. SD/- SD/- (C.M. GARG) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED THE 16 TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2015 TS ITA NO.4435/DEL./2012 4 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), MEERUT. 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.