IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
                DELHI BENCH "C" NEW DELHI
     BEFORE SHRI S.V. MEHROTRA : ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
                           AND
             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.

                                ORDER

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
assessee.
                                      2







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).
                                      3


      ........ .
      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.
      Sd/-                                         Sd/-

( C.M. GARG )                                ( S.V. MEHROTRA )
JUDICIAL MEMBER                              ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

Dated: 14-08-2014.
MP
Copy to :
  1. Assessee
  2. AO
  3. CIT
  4. CIT(A)
  5. DR
4