M/s. Sacred Heart Investment Co. Pvt. Ltd., New Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 6193/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: [2017] 128 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 3578 (ITAT-DELHI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 year(s) 4 month(s) 23 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 12-04-2017
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: G
• Next Hearing Date: 11-04-2017
• Assessment Year: 2009-2010
• Appeal Filed On: 19-11-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: BEDOBANI CHOUDHARY

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH G, NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. R. K. PANDA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA A. PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO. 6193/DEL/2013 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2009-10) S ACRED HEART INVESTMENT CO. PVT. LTD. 2459/10, 3 RD FLOOR, BEADONPUR, KAROL BAGH, NEW DELHI. VS. ITO, WARD-7(1), NEW DELHI PAN : AA ACS8982N (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SH. BEDOBANI CHOUDHARY, SR.DR DATE OF HEARING : 11-04-2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 12-04-2017 O R D E R PER BEENA A. PILLAI, J.M : 1. THIS IS AN APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE AGAINST TH E ORDER DATED 09.09.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCO ME TAX (APPEALS), NEW DELHI, U/S 147/144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT) RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YE AR 2007-08. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE A T THE HEARING FIXED FOR 27.03.2015 DESPITE NOTICE ISSUED THROUGH REGISTERED POST OF THE DATE OF HEARING. IT IS OBSE RVED THAT ON 21.12.2016 ALSO, DESPITE OF NOTICE THROUGH REGISTER ED POST, NONE APPEARED AND, THEREFORE, THE APPEAL WAS ADJOUR NED FOR 11.04.2017. NO ADJOURNMENT APPLICATION HAS BEEN FIL ED BY 2 ITA NO. 61933/DEL/2013 (AY 2009-10) ASSESSEE. THUS, IT APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT IN TERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES, 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARIN G IN FOLLOWING TERMS:- 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 B EFORE 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 BEE N ADMITTED. 4. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) P VT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ASPE CT OF ADMISSIBILITY 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 APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREA RS PARTLY DUE TO APPEALS BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATI ON OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER E XTRANEOUS 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). WH EN THE APPEAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE C ONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOC UMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CAL LING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO AP PEAL 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. THOSE POINTS IF ARISI NG CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS W HY THE RULE PRESCRIBES THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE DOES NOT MEAN APPEAL IS ADMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE SIGNIFICANCE OF RULE 19(2). 3 ITA NO. 61933/DEL/2013 (AY 2009-10) .. . 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE REFE RENCE 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 S TATED HERE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE B ASIS OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADM ISSION OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES THERE W AS NO QUESTION OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SINCE 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 OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PV T. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANC E MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORREC T THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER EXPLANATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG 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 APPLICATION EXPLAINING ITS NON APPEARANCE BEFO RE THE ITAT ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 6. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMISSE D AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 12 TH APRIL, 2017. SD/- SD/- (R. K.PANDA) (BEENA A. PILLAI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 12.04.2017 @M!T