M/s Harvard India Society, Currently Hillwood India Society (Regd.), G-Block, Preet Vihar, Delhi. Vs. Addl. Director of Income-tax (E), Trust Circle-II, New Delhi.
August, 21st 2014
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
DELHI BENCH "C" NEW DELHI
BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI C.M. GARG : JUDICIAL MEMBER
ITA No. 5628/Del/2011
Asstt. Yr: 2004-05
M/s Harvard India Society, Vs. Addl. Director of Income-tax (E),
Currently Hillwood India Trust Circle-II, New Delhi.
Society (Regd.), G-Block,
Preet Vihar, Delhi.
PAN: AABTH 0369 M
( Appellant ) ( Respondent )
Appellant by : None
Respondent by : Ms. Ashima Neb Sr. DR.
Date of hearing : 24-07-2014
Date of order : 14-08-2014.
PER S.V. MEHROTRA, A.M::
This appeal, by the assessee, is directed against the order dated 28-10-
2011 passed by the ld. CIT(A)-XXI, New Delhi in appeal no. 187/10-11,
relating to A.Y. 2004-05.
2. None put in appearance on behalf of the assessee at the hearing fixed
for 24-07-2014. The notice of hearing sent at the address furnished by the
assessee in column no. 10 of form no. 36 has not been returned unserved.
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
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 explanation. Respectfully following the
order of ITAT in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. (supra), I hold the
appeal to be unadmitted with a liberty to assessee to move application
explaining its non appearance before the ITAT on the appointed date.
7. In these terms, the appeal is technically dismissed as unadmitted.
Order pronounced in open court on 14-08-2014.
( C.M. GARG ) ( S.V. MEHROTRA )
JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
Copy to :