Million Switch Gears (P) Ltd.,, Delhi vs Assessee

M/s. Million Switch Gears (P) Ltd., vs. ITO, Ward 6 (4), 3/27, First Floor, Sahdev Gali, New Delhi. Vishwas Nagar, Delhi.

(PAN : AAACM8980E)

(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)

ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE by : Shri P. Dam Kanunjna, Senior DR

Date of Hearing : 27.02.2015 Date of Pronouncement : 27.02.2015

ORDER

PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :

The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT

(Appeals)-IX, New Delhi dated 17.09.2013 for the assessment year 2004-

05.

2. Today i.e. on 27.02.2015 when the case was called on board, none

appeared on behalf of the assessee nor any request for adjournment has

been filed before the Tribunal. The notice of hearing dated 13.02.2015

fixing the hearing for 27.02.2015 sent at the address furnished by the 2 ITA No.5653/Del./2013

assessee in column no.10 of form no. 36 has not been returned unserved.

Thus, in view of Order 5 Rule 19A of the CPC read with section 282 of the

Income-tax Act, 1961, the service of notice is deemed sufficient on the

assessee.

3. Rule 19 of the IT AT Rules, 1963 prescribes the conditions about

admissibility of appeal for hearing in following terms:

"19(1) The Tribunal shall notify to the parties specifying the date and place of hearing of the appeal and send 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 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 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 climate of mounting arrears partly due to appeals being filed without proper application of mind 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 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 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 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. 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 the Significance of rule 19(2).

........

3 ITA No.5653/Del./2013 5. It was submitted at the time of hearing of the Reference Application that the language of Rule 24 of 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 Rules which presupposes admission of appeal under section 253 of the Act besides there was 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 not make the appeal

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.

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 correct the defect

whatsoever in the memo about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the

appeal.

7. In these terms, the appeal is technically dismissed as unadmitted.

Order pronounced in open court on this 27th day of February, 2015 after conclusion of the hearing.

Sd/- sd/- (GEORGE GEORGE K) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated the 27TH day of February, 2015 TS 4 ITA No.5653/Del./2013

Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A)-IX, New Delhi 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.