Sandeep Aggarwal Prop., Punjab vs Assessee
- CitationITA No. 2891/Del/2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
Under Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963, the issue of a notice of hearing does not by itself mean that an appeal has been admitted; admissibility is a question the Tribunal may examine at the time of hearing. Where the assessee fails to appear on the date fixed, despite notice having been issued at the address furnished by it, the appeal is defective and may be treated as unadmitted, following the Tribunal's earlier decision in CIT v. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., 38 ITD 320 (Del.), with liberty to the assessee to apply explaining its non-appearance.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Sandeep Aggarwal Vs. Income-tax Officer, Sudershan Overseas, 5898, Basti Ward 39(3), New Delhi. Harpool Singh,Sadr Bazar, Delhi.
PAN: AAGPA 3419 H
( Appellant ) ( Respondent )
Appellant by : None Respondent by : Shri Ramesh Chandra CIT(DR).
Date of hearing : 20-05-2015 Date of order : 22-05-2015.
ORDER
PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M::
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 28-02-2013 passed by the ld. CIT(A), XXVIII, New Delhi in appeal no. 112/2009-10, relating to A.Y. 2009-10.
2. None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing fixed for 20- 05-2015, despite issue of notice of hearing through RPAD at the address furnished by the assessee in column no. 10 of form no. 36.
3. Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 prescribes the conditions about admissibility of appeal for hearing in following terms:
2 "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).
........ .
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 3
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 explanation. Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I hold the appeal to be unadmitted with a liberty to assessee to move application explaining its non appearance before the ITAT on the appointed date.
6. In these terms, the appeal is technically dismissed as unadmitted.
Order pronounced in open court on 22-05-2015.
Sd/- Sd/- ( A.T. VARKEY ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA ) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated: 22-05-2015. MP Copy to : 1. Assessee 2. AO 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR
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