Vikram Singh, New Delhi V. DCIT, New Delhi

ITA 4896/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 120 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 9978 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 3 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 23-04-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: H
• Next Hearing Date: 23-04-2015
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-08-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: S P CHANDREKAR SENIOR

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL (DELHI BENCH H : NEW DELHI) BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.4896/DEL./2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10) SHRI VIKRAM SINGH, VS. DCIT, CENTRAL CIRCLE 20, C 18 19, QUTAB INSTITUTIONAL AREA, NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI 110 016. (PAN : AAMPS8704R) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE BY : SHRI S.P. CHANDREKAR, SENIOR DR DATE OF HEARING : 23.04.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 23.04.2015 O R D E R PER GEORGE GEORGE K., JM : THIS APPEAL, AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE, IS DI RECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE CIT (A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI DATED 28.05.20 13. THE RELEVANT ASSESSMENT YEAR IS 2009-10. 2. WHEN THE MATTER WAS CALLED UP FOR HEARING TODAY, NO ONE HAS APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HA S NOT FILED ANY ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION ALSO. ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING, I.E. 15.12.2014, SHRI M.S. SEKHON, CA APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSE SSEE AND THE MATTER WAS ADJOURNED TO 23.04.2015. THE NEXT DATE OF HEAR ING, I.E. 23.04.2015 ITA NO.4896/DEL./2013 2 WAS INFORMED BY THE BENCH TO BOTH THE PARTIES IN TH E COURT. IN THESE CIRCUMSTANCES, IT APPEARS THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS, TH EREFORE, LIABLE TO BE DISMISSED, FOR NON-PROSECUTION. OUR ABOVE VIEW FIN DS SUPPORT FROM THE FOLLOWING DECISIONS :- I. CIT VS. B.N. BHATTACHARGEE & ANR. [118 ITR 461] WHE REIN THEIR LORDSHIPS HAVE HELD: THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN MERELY FILING OF THE APPE AL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING IT. II. ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT [223 ITR 4 80 (M.P.)], WHEREIN, WHILE DISMISSING THE REFERENCE MA DE AT THE INSTANCE OF THE ASSESSEE IN DEFAULT, THEIR LORDSHIP S MADE THE FOLLOWING OBSERVATION:- IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS M ADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUN D TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT 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 THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL TO THE RESPONDENT EITHER BEFOR E OR WITH SUCH NOTICE. ITA NO.4896/DEL./2013 3 (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. 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 OF M IND 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 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 CONCERNED CLER K IN REGISTRY 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 MEMO. BUT AT NO S TAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL M EMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUN AL RULES OR IS IT 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 MERE 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 R EFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT. IT MAY BE STAT ED HERE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE BASIS OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADMISSION OF A PPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES THERE WAS NO QUESTIO N OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ITA NO.4896/DEL./2013 4 ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULA RS NOT FURNISHED SO FAR. ' 5. 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. 6. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMI SSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 23 RD DAY OF APRIL, 2015. SD/- SD/- (S.V. MEHROTRA) (GEORGE GEORGE K) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED THE 23 RD DAY OF APRIL, 2015 TS COPY FORWARDED TO: 1.APPELLANT 2.RESPONDENT 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-XXXI, NEW DELHI 5.CIT(ITAT), NEW DELHI. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.