sitemapHome | Registration | Job Portal for CA's | Expert Exchange | Currency Converter | Post Matrimonial Ads | Post Property Ads
News shortcuts: From the Courts | News Headlines | VAT (Value Added Tax) | Placements & Empanelment | Various Acts & Rules | Latest Circulars | New Forms | Forex | Auditing | Direct Tax | Customs and Excise | ICAI | Corporate Law | Markets | Students | General | Mergers and Acquisitions | Continuing Prof. Edu. | Budget Extravaganza | Transfer Pricing | GST - Goods and Services Tax
Latest Expert Exchange
From the Courts »
 Shri Amar Nath Goenka, New Delhi – 110 070. vs. The ACIT, Circle-20(1), New Delhi.
 M/s KSD Charitable Trust, C/o Ganesh Cold, Storage, Meerut VS. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle-1,
 Avaya India Pvt. Ltd. 202, Platina, 2nd Floor, Plot No. C-59, G-Block, Bandra Kurla Complex, Bandra (E), Mumbai, Maharashtra. vs. Addl. Cit Special Range-1 New Delhi.
 Sita Bhagi 83, Sukhdev Vihar, New Delhi. vs. ACIT Circle 65(1) New Delhi.
 ACIT vs. Janak Global Resources Pvt. Ltd (ITAT Chandigarh)
 DCIT vs. Rakesh Saraogi & Sons (HUF) (ITAT Raipur)
 FIS Global Business Solutions India Pvt. Ltd vs. PCIT (Delhi High Court)
 DCIT International Taxation, Circle-Noida, Aayakar Bhawan, Sector-24, Noida vs. Jaypee Sports International Ltd., Sector-128, Noida.
 Nokia India Pvt. Ltd., 1st Floor, Tower A, SP Infocity, Industrial Plot No. 243, Udyog Vihar, Phase-1, Dundahera, Gurgaon, Haryana vs. DCIT, Circle 13 (1) New Delhi
 Sh. Nafe Singh Gahlawat, H. No. 1032, Sector-14, Faridabad vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-II(3), Faridabad
 Dr. Ashok Seth, B-30, Geetanjali Enclave, New Delhi. vs. ACIT, Circle-61(1), New Delhi.

Raj Kumar, Vs. JCIT Bhiwani Range, Prop. Mor Hatcheries, Bhiwani. Ludana Tehsil Safidon, Distt. Jind. Vs. JCIT Bhiwani Range, Bhiwani.
November, 06th 2013
                DELHI BENCH "F" NEW DELHI

                           ITA No. 5167/Del/2012
                           Asstt. Yr: 2009-10

Raj Kumar,              Vs.            JCIT Bhiwani Range,
Prop. Mor Hatcheries,                       Bhiwani.
Ludana Tehsil Safidon,
Distt. Jind.

( Appellant )                                ( Respondent )

                Appellant by : None
                Respondent by : Shri Vivek Kumar Sr. DR



      This is assessee's appeal against CIT(A)- Rohtak's order dated 19-
07-2012 relating to the assessment year 2009-10.

2.    None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing fixed
for 28-10-2013. The notice of hearing was sent to the assessee through
registered post, 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:
      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
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 what-so-
ever in the memo about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the appeal.
7.    In these terms, the appeal is technically dismissed as unadmited.
Order pronounced in open court on 28-10-2013.

            Sd/-                                          Sd/-
(SHAMIM YAHYA )                                    ( R.P. TOLANI )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER                             JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated: 28-10-2013.
Copy to :
  1. Assessee
  2. AO
  3. CIT
  4. CIT(A)
  5. DR
Home | About Us | Terms and Conditions | Contact Us
Copyright 2018 CAinINDIA All Right Reserved.
Designed and Developed by Binarysoft Technologies Pvt. Ltd.
Software Development Software Programming Software Engineering Custom Software Development Requirement Based Software Development Software Solutions Software Serv

Transfer Pricing | International Taxation | Business Consulting | Corporate Compliance and Consulting | Assurance and Risk Advisory | Indirect Taxes | Direct Taxes | Transaction Advisory | Regular Compliance and Reporting | Tax Assessments | International Taxation Advisory | Capital Structuring | Withholding tax advisory | Expatriate Tax Reporting | Litigation | Badges | Club Badges | Seals | Military Insignias | Emblems | Family Crest | Software Development India | Software Development Company | SEO Company | Web Application Development | MLM Software | MLM Solutions