Sh. Dharambir, Gurgaon V. DCIT, Gurgaon

ITA 4583/DEL/2016

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6538 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 14 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 09-12-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC 1
• Next Hearing Date: 06-12-2016
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2016
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: F R MEENA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH SMC-I, NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.4583/DEL/2016 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07 DHARAMBIR, S/O SHRI RAM CHANDER, H. NO.1383/31, LAXMAN VIHAR, PHASE- 1, GURGAON. VS. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), GURGAON PAN : ARPPD 9276 A (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI F. R. MEENA, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 06-12-2016 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 09-12-2016 O R D E R PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M : THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST THE ORDER DATED 25.02.2016 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS)-I, GURGAON, U/S 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (I N SHORT THE ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2006-07. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING FIXED FOR 06.12.2016 DESPITE NOTICE ISSUED THROUGH REGIST ERED POST OF THE DATE OF HEARING. IT IS OBSERVED THAT ON 27.10.2016 ALSO, I NSPITE OF NOTICE THROUGH REGISTERED POST, NONE APPEARED AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED FOR 06.12.2016. NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FI LED BY ASSESSEE. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSE CUTING THE APPEAL. 2 ITA NO.4583/DEL/2016 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 SPE CIFYING THE DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SEND A COPY OF THE MEMORA NDUM 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. 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. DECISI ONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE A PPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PARTLY DUE TO APPEALS BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGET HER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIB UNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUCH ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE CO ULD NOT 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 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 APPEAL ME MO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL M EMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS I T A LEGALLY VALID APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. THOSE POINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS WHY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THAT M ERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS T HE SIGNIFICANCE OF RULE 19(2). .. . 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL R ULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE R ESPONDENT. 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 APPEA L UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF HEARING THE RE SPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISHED SO FAR. 3 ITA NO.4583/DEL/2016 5. THUS, THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF 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 DEFECT IVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER EXPLANATIO N. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLA N (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), WE HOLD THE APPEAL TO BE UNADMITTED WITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPLICATION EXPLAINING ITS NON APPEARANCE BEFO RE THE ITAT ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 6. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMIS SED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 09 TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2016. SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 09-12-2016. SUJEET COPY OF ORDER TO: - 1) THE APPELLANT; 2) THE RESPONDENT; 3) THE CIT; 4) THE CIT(A)-, NEW DELHI; 5) THE DR, I.T.A.T., NEW DELHI; BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, NEW DELHI