National Institute For Development Studies, Meerut V. CIT, Meerut

ITA 5015/DEL/2011

• Counselvise Citation: 501520114 RSA 2011
• Duration Of Justice: 2 year(s) 9 month(s) 15 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 27-08-2014
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: E
• Next Hearing Date: 27-08-2014
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 11-11-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH: E NEW DELHI BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. PRAMOD KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A .NO.-5015/DEL/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR- NIL) NATIONAL INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES, C-19, UNIVERSITY CAMPUS, CCS UNIVERSITY, MEERUT P AN-AASPS9044G (APPELLANT) VS CIT, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, BHAINSALI GROUND, MEERUT (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY NONE RESPONDENT BY SH. SUNIL SHARMA, SR. DR ORDER PER DIVA SINGH, JM THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 29.08.2011 OF THE CIT, MEERUT. HOWEVER NO ONE WAS PRESENT ON BEH ALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. THE APPEAL WAS PASSED OVER TWICE. IN THE THIRD ROUND ALSO, THE POSITION REMAINED THE SAME AS NEITHER ANYONE WAS PR ESENT NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN PLACED BEFORE THE BENCH. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT ON THE LAST DATE OF HEARING I.E. 13.03.2014, BOTH THE PARTIES W ERE PRESENT AND THE APPEAL WAS ADJOURNED TO 27.08.2014. THE RECORD FURTHER SHOWS THAT THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT CERTAIN DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL FILED WHICH TILL DATE HAVE NOT BEEN CURED BY THE ASSESSEE. IN THE CIRCUMSTANCE IT CAN BE SAFELY PRE SUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUING THE PRESENT APPEAL. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF AP PEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TERMS:- 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 I.T.A .NO.-5015/DEL/2011 (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. 2. 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 . 3. IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPR A) IT WAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPE AL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN TERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. 4. 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 3 I.T.A .NO.-5015/DEL/2011 MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND CORRECT THE DEFECT WHATSOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THE APPEA L. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED ON THE DATE OF HEARING ITSELF IN THE OPE N COURT. 5. IN THE RESULT THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISM ISSED IN LIMINE. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 27 TH OF AUGUST 2014. SD/- SD/- (PRAMOD KUMAR) (DIVA SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEM BER DATED: 27/08/2014 *AMIT KUMAR* COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. APPELLANT 2. RESPONDENT 3. CIT 4. CIT(APPEALS) 5. DR: ITAT ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT NEW DELHI