Nidhi Verma, New Delhi vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No.274 /Del/2012
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal may treat an appeal as unadmitted, and dismiss it on that footing, where the assessee's counsel does not appear on the hearing date despite repeated adjournments and due notice, no request for adjournment has been made, and the inference drawn is that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal; the issue of notice of hearing does not by itself amount to admission of the appeal, and such an appeal is dismissed as unadmitted, without prejudice to the assessee's right to seek recall on showing sufficient cause for non-appearance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
BEFORE SHRI H. S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI T.S. KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. No.274 /Del/2012 Assessment year : 2006-07 Mrs. Nidhi Verma, Vs. ITO, Ward 22(1), 232, Kailash Hills, New Delhi East of Kailash, New Delhi-110 065 GIR / PAN:AAEPV7268F (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri P Dankanunjna Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 10.03.2015 Date of pronouncement : 11.03.2015
ORDER
PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM:
This is an appeal filed by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) XII, New Delhi dated 31.10.2011.
2. This appeal was fixed for hearing on 20.03.2012, which was adjourned to 30.07.2012 on written request of both the parties and thereafter, bench did not function on two occasions but again on 17.07.2013, the case was adjourned to 4.12.2013 on written request of assessee's counsel and again after non functioning of Bench, the case was adjourned to 13.10.2014 on which date also none was present on behalf of assessee. Finally the appeal was fixed for hearing on 10.03.2015 and notice was sent through RPAD well in advance. On 10.03.2015 also, none was present on behalf of 2 ITA No.274/Del/2012
assessee nor any request for adjournment has been received. In view of above, it is implied that the assessee is not interested in prosecution of its appeal and therefore, the appeal filed by assessee is unadmitted as mere issue of notice does not mean that appeal is admitted. We get support from the following case laws:
3. 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.274/Del/2012 4. Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), the assessee's appeal is treated as unadmitted and therefore, is dismissed. However, the assessee is at liberty to file an application for recall of the order provided she can demonstrate that it was prevented by sufficient cause for not appearing at the time of hearing.
5. In view of above, appeal filed by assessee is dismissed as unadmitted.
6. Order as pronounced in the open court orally on the date of hearing is pronounced in writing on 11th March, 2015.
Sd./- Sd./- (H. S. SIDHU ) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER th Date: 11 March, 2015 Sp Copy forwarded to:- 1. The appellant 2. The respondent 3. The CIT 4. The CIT (A)-, New Delhi.
5. The DR, ITAT, Loknayak Bhawan, Khan Market, New Delhi.
True copy.
By Order (ITAT, New Delhi).
S.No. Details Date Initials Designation 1 Draft dictated on 10/3 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 11,11/3 Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member 5 Approved Draft comes to the Sr. PS/PS 11/3 Sr. PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement 11/3 Sr. PS/PS 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 11/3 Sr. PS/PS Date on which the file goes to Head 8 Clerk 9 Date on which file goes to A.R. 10 Date of Dispatch of order
This page reproduces a public judgment and a summary of it. It is research material, not legal advice, and it is no substitute for advice from an advocate on your own facts.
Research this judgment with Miss Lucy
Ask what it holds, what has followed it, and what it means for your matter — in plain English, with the citations.
Try Miss Lucy free