Raj Kumar, Vs. JCIT Bhiwani Range, Prop. Mor Hatcheries, Bhiwani. Ludana Tehsil Safidon, Distt. Jind. Vs. JCIT Bhiwani Range, Bhiwani.
November, 06th 2013
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "F" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI R.P. TOLANI AND SHRI SHAMIM YAHYA
ITA No. 5167/Del/2012
Asstt. Yr: 2009-10
Raj Kumar, Vs. JCIT Bhiwani Range,
Prop. Mor Hatcheries, Bhiwani.
Ludana Tehsil Safidon,
PAN/ GIR No. AOBPK 2993 K
( Appellant ) ( Respondent )
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Shri Vivek Kumar Sr. DR
PER R.P. TOLANI, J.M :
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
(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.
(SHAMIM YAHYA ) ( R.P. TOLANI )
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy to :