M/S AGRASEN COLD STORAGE P. LTD., BHARATPUR v. ACIT, BHARATPUR

ITA 977/JPR/2011 | 2001-2002
Pronouncement Date: 27-11-2014 | Result: Dismissed

Appeal Details

RSA Number 97723114 RSA 2011
Assessee PAN AAECA2075J
Bench Jaipur
Appeal Number ITA 977/JPR/2011
Duration Of Justice 3 year(s) 17 day(s)
Appellant M/S AGRASEN COLD STORAGE P. LTD., BHARATPUR
Respondent ACIT, BHARATPUR
Appeal Type Income Tax Appeal
Pronouncement Date 27-11-2014
Appeal Filed By Assessee
Order Result Dismissed
Bench Allotted B
Tribunal Order Date 27-11-2014
Assessment Year 2001-2002
Appeal Filed On 09-11-2011
Judgment Text
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL JAIPUR BENCH : JAIPUR BEFORE SHRI SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NO.977/JP/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR :2001-02) M/S. AGRASEN COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. VS. ACIT CIR CLE C/O SHRI SATYA PRAKASH SINGHAL BHARATPUR. TAX CONSULTANT BHARATPUR. (PAN : AAECA2075J) (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : NONE REVENUE : SHRI RAJESH OJHA ADDL.CIT DATE OF HEARING : 27.11.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNACEMENT : 27.11.2014 O R D E R PER B.C. MEENA ACCOUNTANT MEMBER : THIS APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE EMANATES FROM TH E ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) ALWAR DATED 03.08.2011 FOR THE ASSESSMENT YEAR 2001 -02. 2. TODAY I.E. ON 27.11.2014 WHEN THE CASE WAS CALLE D ON BOARD NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE NOR ANY REQUEST FOR ADJOURNM ENT HAS BEEN FILED BEFORE THE TRIBUNAL. THE NOTICE SENT BY REGISTERED A/D POST O N THE ADDRESS MENTIONED IN THE 2 ITA NO.977/JP/2011 COLUMN NO.10 OF FORM NO.36 HAS BEEN RECEIVED BACK U NSERVED. THUS IN VIEW OF ORDER 5 RULE 19A OF THE CPC READ WITH SECTION 282 OF THE INCOME-TAX ACT 1961 THE SERVICE OF NOTICE IS DEEMED SUFFICIENT ON THE ASSESSEE. 3. RULE 19 OF THE ITAT RULES 1963 PRESCRIBES THE CONDITIONS ABOUT ADMISSIBILITY OF APPEAL FOR HEARING IN FOLLOWING TERMS: 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 BEFOR E 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 A DMITTED. ' 4. THE ITAT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. MULTIPLAN (INDIA ) PVT. LTD. 38 ITD 320 (DEL.) HAD OCCASION TO CONSIDER THE ASPECT OF ADMISSIBILIT Y OF APPEAL FOR HEARING BY OBSERVING AS UNDER : '4. A JUDICIAL BODY HAS CERTAIN INHERENT POWERS. DE CISIONS ARE TAKEN FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROPER AND EXPEDITIOUS DIS POSAL OF THE APPEALS IN PRESENT CLIMATE OF MOUNTING ARREARS PART LY DUE TO APPEALS BEING FILED WITHOUT PROPER APPLICATION OF MIND TO F ACTS AND LAW AND ALSO AT TIMES FOR ALTOGETHER EXTRANEOUS CONSIDERATI ONS. THEREFORE ON THE BASIS OF INHERENT POWERS THE TRIBUNAL TREATED T HE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED. THE PROVISIONS OF RULE 19 OF THE APPELL ATE TRIBUNAL RULES SUPPORT SUCH ACTION BY STATING THAT MERE ISSU E OF NOTICE COULD NOT BY ITSELF MEAN THAT APPEAL HAD BEEN ADMITTED. T HIS RULE ONLY CLARIFIED THE POSITION. THERE IS JUSTIFICATION FOR RULE 19(2). WHEN THE APPEAL IS PRESENTED THE SAME IS ACCEPTED. THEREAFTE R THE CONCERNED CLERK IN REGISTRY VERIFIES WHETHER ACCOMPANYING DOC UMENTS ARE RECEIVED OR NOT AND IF NOT A MEMO IS ISSUED CALLING FOR THE PAPERS WHICH ARE ALSO REQUIRED TO BE ATTACHED TO APPEAL ME MO. BUT AT NO STAGE USUALLY THE SCRUTINY IS MADE ON POINTS WHETHE R THE APPEAL MEMO AND CONTENTS REALLY CONFORM TO VARIOUS APPELLA TE 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 T HE SIGNIFICANCE OF RULE 19(2). 3 ITA NO.977/JP/2011 ..... 5. IT WAS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF HEARING OF THE R EFERENCE APPLICATION THAT THE LANGUAGE OF RULE 24 OF THE APP ELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REQUIRED THE TRIBUNAL TO DISPOSE OF THE APPEA L 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 RESPON DENT SINCE NONE COULD BE NOTIFIED BECAUSE OF INCORRECT ADDRESS GIVE N 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 MA KE THE APPEAL ADMISSIBLE. NON- ATTENDANCE MAKES THE APPEAL DEFECTIVE AND THE ASSES SEE HAS TO CORRECT THE SAME BY GIVING PROPER ADDRESS. THEREFORE THE APPEAL WAS HE LD 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 W ITH A LIBERTY TO ASSESSEE TO MOVE APPROPRIATE APPLICATION AND CORRECT THE DEFECT WHAT SOEVER IN THE MEMO ABOUT ITS ADDRESS TO ENSURE A PROPER HEARING OF THE APPEAL. 7. IN THESE TERMS THE APPEAL IS TECHNICALLY DISMI SSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. SD/- SD/- (SHAILENDRA KUMAR YADAV) (B.C. MEENA) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JAIPUR DATED : THE 27 TH DAY OF NOVEMBER 2014. 4 ITA NO.977/JP/2011 COPY FORWARDED TO: 1. M/S. AGRASEN COLD STORAGE PVT. LTD. 2. ACIT CIRCLE BHARATPUR. 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR ITAT GUARD FILE (ITA NO.977/JP/2011) AR ITAT NEW DELHI.