A.K. Plantation Pvt. Ltd., 7A/1, Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Delhi-110054. Vs ITO, Ward-1(1), C.R. Building, I.P.Estate, New Delhi
May, 21st 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH: `A' NEW DELHI
BEFORE SMT DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER
SH. T.S.KAPOOR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
I.T.A .Nos.-493 & 494/Del/2013
(ASSESSMENT YEAR- 2006-07)
A.K. Plantation Pvt. Ltd., vs ITO,
7A/1, Rajpura Road, Civil Lines, Ward-1(1), C.R. Building,
Delhi-110054. I.P.Estate, New Delhi
Appellant by None
Respondent by Y.Kakkar, DR
PER DIVA SINGH, JM
Both these appeals filed by the assessee have been filed against the separate
orders dated 20.11.2012 of CIT(A)-IV, New Delhi assailing his action of
upholding the penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) & 271(1)(b) pertaining to 2006-07
2. However at the time of hearing no one was present on behalf of the assessee.
The appeals were passed over. Even in the second round the position remained the
same as neither anyone was present nor any request for adjournment has been
placed before the Bench. The record shows that the appeals were adjourned to the
present date on the specific request of the assessee as is borne out from the order
sheet entry dated 28.11.2013. In the afore-mentioned peculiar facts and
circumstances, it can be safely presumed that the assessee is not serious in
pursuing the present appeals.
2 I.T.A .No.-4245/Del/2013
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 (s) 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 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."
5. Thus, the ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra) has held
that issuance of notice under Rule 19 itself does not make the appeal admissible.
3 I.T.A .No.-4245/Del/2013
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 appeals to be unadmitted with a liberty to assessee to
move appropriate application and explaining the reasons for its non-appearance if
so advised and pray for a recall of the order and adjudication on merits. The said
order was pronounced on the date of hearing itself in the open Court.
7. In the result the appeals of the assessee are dismissed in limine.
The order is pronounced in the open court on 19th of May 2014.
(T.S.KAPOOR) (DIVA SINGH)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Copy forwarded to:
5. DR: ITAT
ITAT NEW DELHI