M/s. Govindam Apparels Pvt. Ltd., Delhi V. ITO, New Delhi

ITA 959/DEL/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 95920114 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 9 month(s) 13 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 28-11-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 28-11-2013
• Assessment Year: 2007-2008
• Appeal Filed On: 15-02-2013
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SATPAL SINGH

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH C NEW DELHI BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI D.K. SRIVASTAVA ITA NO. 959/DEL/2013 ASSTT. YR: 2007-08 GOVINDAM APPARELS PVT. LTD. VS. INCOME-TAX OFFICE R, 3522/3, NARANG COLONY, TRI NAGAR, WARD 12(2), NEW DELHI. NEW DELHI. PAN : AACCG 3688 B ( APPELLANT ) ( RESPONDENT ) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI SATPAL SINGH SR. DR O R D E R PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M: : THIS IS ASSESSEES APPEAL AGAINST ORDER DATED 1-11 -2012 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-XVIII, NEW DELHI, RELATING TO A.Y. 2007-08. 2. NONE PUT IN APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE HEARING FIXED FOR 28-11-2013, DESPITE ISSUE OF NOTICE THROUGH RPA D POST AT THE ADDRESS FURNISHED BY THE ASSESSEE IN COLUMN NO. 10 OF FORM NO. 36. ON EARLIER DATE OF HEARING I.E. 19-8-2013 THE ASSESSEE REMAINED ABSENT DESPITE PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE OF THE DATE OF HEARING AS IS APPARENT FRO M THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT- CUM-NOTICE ISSUED AT THE TIME OF FILING OF APPEAL B EFORE THE ITAT. EVEN NO REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF HEARING HAS BEEN RECEIVE D. 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 SEN D 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 BEEN A DMITTED. 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 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 DIS POSAL OF THE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PART LY 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 CONC ERNED 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 AP PEAL MEMO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POI NTS WHETHER THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARI OUS APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES OR IS IT A LEGALLY VALID A PPEAL 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 A DMITTED. THIS ACCORDING TO US, IS THE 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 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 ADMISSIO N 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 MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT . LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES N OT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTI VE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THERE FORE, THE APPEAL WAS HELD AS INADMISSIBLE IN TERMS MENTIONED ABOVE. 6. 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 AND COR RECT THE DEFECT WHAT-SO- EVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROP ER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 7. IN THESE TERMS, THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMIS SED AS UNADMITED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN OPEN COURT ON 28-11-2013. SD/- SD/- ( D.K. SRIVASTAVA ) ( R.P. TOLANI ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 28-11-2013. MP COPY TO : 1. ASSESSEE 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR