M/s. Satyam Cements, Kathua V. The Income-tax Officer, Kathua

ITA 521/ASR/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2015] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 95092 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 02-12-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 01-12-2015
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 21-08-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: K V K SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR [JAMMU CAMP, JAMMU] BEFORE SHRI A.D.JAIN, HONBLE JUDICIAL MEMBER, AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, HONBLE ACCOUNTA NT MEMBER I.T.A. NO 521(ASR)/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR:2010-11 M/S SATYAM CEMENTS RAKH JALPHAR KATHUA PAN : ABGFS 9266 B VS. THE I.T.O KATHAU, (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SH. K.V.K. SINGH (DR.) DATE OF HEARING: 02.12.2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEM ENT: 02.12 .2015 ORDER PER A.D. JAIN, JM:- THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED THIS APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDE R OF CIT (APPEALS), JAMMU DATED 23.06.2014 FOR THE ASSESSMEN T YEAR 2010- 11. ITA NO. 521(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 010-11 2 2. TODAY, I.E. ON 02.12.2015, WHEN THE CASE WAS CAL LED ON BOARD, NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL DESP ITE SERVICE OF NOTICE. IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 RULE 19A OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT, 1961, THE SERVICE OF NOT ICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT ON THE ASSESSEE. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES TH E 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 SEN D A COPY OF THE 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 APPE AL HAS BEEN ADMITTED. ' ITA NO. 521(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 010-11 3 4. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDI A) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ASPECT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER: '4. A JUDICIAL BODY HAS CERTAIN INHERENT POWERS. DECISIONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMA TE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PARTLY DUE TO APPEALS BEING FILE D WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIO NS. THEREFORE, ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIB UNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUCH ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD 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 PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTR Y VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS ARE RECEIVE D OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE P APERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO APPEAL MEMO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS IT A LEGALLY VALID APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT. T HOSE ITA NO. 521(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 010-11 4 POINTS IF ARISING CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS WHY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THAT MERE ISSUE O F 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 REFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 O F THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL 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 TRIBUNAL RIDES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADMISSION OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES THERE WAS NO QUESTION OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD B E NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISHED SO FAR . ' THUS, THE ITAT IN THE CASE MULTIPLAN (I) P LTD. (SU PRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES NOT MA KE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTI VE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER A DDRESS. THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN T ERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. ITA NO. 521(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 010-11 5 5. SIMILAR VIEW HAS BEEN TAKEN BY THE HONBLE MADHY A PRADESH HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF ESTATE OF LATE TUKOJIRAO HOLKAR VS. CWT (223 ITR 480) WHEREIN IT HAS BEEN HELD AS UNDER: IF THE PARTY, AT WHOSE INSTANCE THE REFERENCE IS MADE, FAILS TO APPEAR AT THE HEARING, OR FAILS IN TAKING STEPS FOR PREPARATION OF THE PAPER BOOKS SO AS TO ENABLE HEARING OF THE REFERENCE, THE COURT IS NOT BOUND TO ANSWER THE REFERENCE. 6. SIMILARLY, HONBLE PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF NEW DIWAN OIL MILLS VS. CIT (2008) 296 ITR 495) RET URNED THE REFERENCE UNANSWERED SINCE THE ASSESSEE REMAINED AB SENT AND THERE WAS NOT ANY ASSISTANCE FROM THE ASSESSEE. 7. THEIR LORDSHIPS OF HONBLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. B. BHATTACHARGEE & ANOTHER (118 ITR 461 AT PAG E 477-478) HELD THAT THE APPEAL DOES NOT MEAN, MERE FILING OF THE M EMO OF APPEAL BUT EFFECTIVELY PURSUING THE SAME. ITA NO. 521(ASR)/2014 ASST. YEAR 2 010-11 6 8. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWING THE ORDER OF ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. (SUPRA), THE APPEAL IS DISMISSED FOR NON PROSECUTION. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNIC ALLY DISMISSED. 9. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON THIS 2 ND DAY OF DECEMBER, 2015 AFTER CONCLUSION OF THE HEARING. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 2 ND DECEMBER, 2015. SD/- SD/- (T.S.KAPOOR) (A.D.JAIN) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER VL/ DATED: 02 ND DECEMBER, 2015 COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: 2. THE 3. THE CIT(A) 4. THE CIT 5. THE SR DR, ITAT, AMRITSAR. TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSA.