Suchita Gupta (Agarwal), J.P. Nagar vs Assessee
- CitationITA No.4423/Del./2013
Ratio decidendi
The rule this decision rests on
A notice issued by the Tribunal under Rule 19(1) of the ITAT Rules, 1963 does not by itself mean that the appeal has been admitted (Rule 19(2)). Admissibility of an appeal, including whether the memorandum conforms to the Tribunal Rules and is a valid appeal under section 253, can be examined at the stage of hearing, and where the assessee fails to attend on the date fixed, the appeal may be treated as unadmitted rather than decided on merits, the assessee being left at liberty to apply for appropriate relief and correct the defect in the memorandum, including its address for service of notice.
Written by Miss Lucy from the judgment below, not taken from a headnote.
Judgment
As delivered
Smt. Suchita Gupta (Aggarwal), vs. Income Tax Officer, W/o Shri Anil Kumar, Sambhal. Mohalla Katra, Dhanaura, Distt. J.P. Nagar - 244231 (U.P.)
(PAN : ABVPA2129G)
(APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT)
ASSESSEE BY : None REVENUE by : Shri Gaurav Dudeja, Senior DR
ORDER
PER B.C. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER :
The assessee has filed this appeal against the order of CIT
(Appeals), Bareilly dated 18.03.2013 for the assessment year 2002-03.
2. Today i.e. on 13.01.2015 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. On the last date of hearing, i.e.
08.07.2014, the matter was adjourned and both the parties were informed
about the next date of hearing i.e. 13.01.2015.
3. Rule 19 of the IT AT Rules, 1963 prescribes the conditions about
admissibility of appeal for hearing in following terms: 2 ITA No.4423/Del./2013
"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 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 3 ITA No.4423/Del./2013
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 13th day of January, 2015 after conclusion of the hearing.
SD/- SD/- (H.S. SIDHU) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Dated the 13th day of January, 2015/TS
Copy forwarded to: 1.Appellant 2.Respondent 3.CIT 4.CIT(A), Bareilly. 5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi. AR, ITAT NEW DELHI.
Connected matters
Decided by the same order
- Swati Gupta, J.P. Nagar vs Assessee13 January 2015
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