Print-Fab (India) P. Ltd.,, New Delhi vs Assessee
- CitationI.T.A. No. 5751/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
The Tribunal's reasoning rests on two linked propositions. First, where the assessee's authorised representative appears without a power of attorney on record and fails to file one when directed, an adjournment application may be rejected and the assessee is deemed to be absent at the appointed hearing, from which the Tribunal draws the inference that the assessee is not interested in prosecuting the appeal. Second, the issue of a notice of hearing does not by itself mean that the appeal has been admitted; a Tribunal may therefore treat an appeal as unadmitted and dismiss it on that footing, relying on the rule that mere issue of notice does not amount to admission and on the Tribunal's inherent power to regulate its own proceedings for the expeditious disposal of appeals. The dismissal is without prejudice to the assessee moving an application for recall on showing sufficient cause for its non-appearance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Printfab (India) P. Ltd., Vs. ITO, Ward 14(4), 46/8, 1st Floor, East Patel Nagar, New Delhi New Delhi. GIR / PAN: AACCP7299M (Appellant) (Respondent)
Appellant by : Assessee's representative Present Respondent by : Shri Vikram Sahay, Sr. DR
Date of hearing : 02.03.2015 Date of pronouncement : .03.2015
ORDER
PER T.S. KAPOOR, AM:
This appeal has been filed by assessee against the order of Ld. CIT(A) dated12.08.2013. The appeal was fixed for hearing on 02.03.2015 and at the time of hearing an advocate placed on record an application for adjournment of the case but on going through the file, we found that there was no power of attorney executed by assessee in favour of advocate, therefore, the counsel was advised to file power of attorney and the case was passed over but in the second round also, the Ld. counsel could not file power of attorney and therefore, the adjournment application was rejected and it was 2 ITA No.5751/Del/2013
deemed that none was present on behalf of the assessee on the appointed date of hearing. 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).
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 3 ITA No.5751/Del/2013
application for recall of the order provided it 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 this 04th day of March, 2015.
Sd./- Sd./- ( DIVA SINGH) (T.S. KAPOOR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER th Date:04 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 02/03 Sr. PS/PS 2 Draft placed before author 2,3,3, Sr. PS/PS Draft proposed & placed before the 3 JM/AM Second Member Draft discussed/approved by Second 4 AM/AM Member Approved Draft comes to the Sr. 5 Sr. PS/PS PS/PS 6 Kept for pronouncement Sr. PS/PS 7 File sent to Bench Clerk 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