Subodh Gupta, Delhi v. JCIT, New Delhi

ITA 955/DEL/2016 | 2011-2012
Pronouncement Date: 13-11-2017 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 95520114 RSA 2016
Assessee PAN AEVPG4646M
Bench Delhi
Appeal Number ITA 955/DEL/2016
Duration Of Justice 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 18 day(s)
Appellant Subodh Gupta, Delhi
Respondent JCIT, New Delhi
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 13-11-2017
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Tags No record found
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 13-11-2017
Assessment Year 2011-2012
Appeal Filed On 25-02-2016
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DELHI BENCH B NEW DELHI BEFORE SH. BHAVNESH SAINI JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. L. P. SAHU ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO. 955/DEL/2016 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2011-12) ) ASSESSEE BY : NONE. DEPARTMENT BY : SH. ANIL KR. SHARMA SR. DR DATE OF HEARING : 13.11.2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 13.11.2017 O R D E R PER BHAVNESH SAINI J.M : 1. THIS APPEAL BY ASSESSEE HAS BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF LD. CIT (A)19 NEW DELHI DATED 03.11.201 5 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2011-12. 2. THE ASSESSEE HAS BEEN INFORMED THE DATE OF HEARING THROUGH REGISTERED POST HOWEVER NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE AT THE TIME OF HEARING. IT THEREFORE APPEARS THAT ASSESSEE IS NOT MORE INTERESTED IN PROSECUTING THE APPEAL. THEREFORE APPEAL OF THE ASSESS IS LIABLE TO BE DIS MISSED. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARIN G IN FOLLOWING TERMS:- SUBODH GUPTA D-3 EAST JYOTI NAGAR SHANDARA DELHI VS J CIT RANGE-34 NEW DELHI GIR/PAN: AEVPG4646M / (APPELLANT) /(RESPONDENT) 2 ITA NO. 955/DEL/2016 19(1) THE TRIBUNAL SHALL NOTIFY TO THE PARTIES SPE CIFYING THE DATE AND PLACE OF HEARING OF THE APPEAL AND SEND A COPY OF THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL TO THE RESPONDENT EITHER B EFORE 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 BEE N ADMITTED. 4. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ASPE CT OF ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER :- 4. A JUDICIAL BODY HAS CERTAIN INHERENT POWERS. DECISI ONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DISPOSAL OF THE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREA RS PARTLY DUE TO APPEALS BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATI ON OF MIND TO FACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER E XTRANEOUS CONSIDERATIONS. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIBUNAL TREATED THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PROV ISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUC H ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSUE OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSE LF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. THIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WH EN THE APPEAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTER THE C ONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOC UMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CAL LING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO AP PEAL 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 ARISI NG CAN BE CONSIDERED ONLY AT A TIME OF HEARING. AND THAT IS W HY 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 REFE RENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL ON MERITS AFTER HEARING THE RESPONDENT. IT MAY BE S TATED HERE THAT THE TRIBUNAL HAS NOT PASSED ANY ORDER ON THE B ASIS OF RULE 24 OF THE TRIBUNAL RULES WHICH PRESUPPOSES ADM ISSION OF APPEAL UNDER SECTION 253 OF THE ACT BESIDES THERE W AS NO QUESTION OF HEARING THE RESPONDENT SINCE NONE COULD BE 3 ITA NO. 955/DEL/2016 NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVEN BY THE APPELLANT AND PROPER PARTICULARS NOT FURNISHED SO FAR. 5. THUS THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF MULTIPLAN (INDIA) PV T. LTD. (SUPRA) HAS HELD THAT ISSUANCE OF NOTICE UNDER RULE 19 ITSELF DOES NOT MAKE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON-ATTENDANC E MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSESSEE HAS TO CORREC T THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER EXPLANATION. RESPECTFULLY FOLLOWI NG 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 APPLICATION EXPLAINING ITS NON APPEARANCE BEFO RE THE ITAT ON THE APPOINTED DATE. 6. IN THESE TERMS THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMISSE D AS UNADMITTED. IN THE RESULT APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 13.11.2017. SD/- SD/- (L. P. SAHU) (BHAVNESH SAINI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATE: 13.11.2017 @M!T