IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                      DELHI BENCH: `F' NEW DELHI

               BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
                                 AND
                 SH. B.C.MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

                             I.T.A .No.-5372/Del/2013
                           (ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2008-09)

      Pawan Kumar Gupta, 95,          vs      ITO,
      Qutub Road, New Delhi.                  Ward-48(3), D-Block (Tower),
      PAN-AAGPG3698A                          Civic Centre, Minto Road,
                                              New Delhi-110002
      (APPELLANT)                             (RESPONDENT)

                   Appellant by            None
                   Respondent by           Sh. Devi Sharan Singh, Sr. DR

                                            ORDER
PER DIVA SINGH, JM

        This is an appeal filed by the assessee against the order dated 25.01.2012 of
the CIT(A)-XXX, New Delhi pertaining to 2008-09 assessment year. At the time
of hearing, no one was present on behalf of the assessee nor any request for
adjournment has been placed before the Bench. The appeal was passed over
however the position remained the same in the second round also. Neither the
assessee was present nor any adjournment request                has been placed before the
Bench. It is further seen that on the last date of hearing i.e. 01.04.2014, the
assessee remained unrepresented.             Accordingly the appeal was adjourned and
notice through RPAD was sent. In the circumstance it can be safely presumed that
the     assessee is not serious in pursuing the present appeal. 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 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                       I.T.A .No.-5372/Del/2013







      (2)   The issue of the notice referred to in sub-rule (s) shall not by itself be
      deemed to mean that the appeal has been admitted."

2.    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 expeditions 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
      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 present 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 prescribing 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."






3.    In the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) it was 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 address. Therefore, the appeal was held as inadmissible in terms mentioned
above.
4.    Respectfully following the order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India)
Pvt. Ltd. (supra), we hold the appeal to be unadmitted with the liberty to assessee
                                         3                    I.T.A .No.-5372/Del/2013

to move appropriate application and correct the defect whatsoever in the memo
about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the appeal. The said order was
pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.
5.    In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed in limine.
      The order is pronounced in the open court on 22nd of September 2014.

     Sd/-                                                             Sd/-
(B.C.MEENA)                                                      (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                                           JUDICIAL MEMBER

Dated: 22/09/2014
*Amit Kumar*

Copy forwarded to:
1.   Appellant
2.   Respondent
3.   CIT
4.   CIT(Appeals)
5.   DR: ITAT
                                                         ASSISTANT REGISTRAR
                                                               ITAT NEW DELHI