(DELHI BENCH ?A? : NEW DELHI)
BEFORE SHRI N.K. SAINI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
SHRI GEORGE GEORGE K, JUDICIAL MEMBER
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10)
(ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2009-10)
Shri Bhuwan Prakash Juyal, vs. ITO, Ward 1,
B ? 95, Subhash Nagar, Roorkee.
(PAN : AGDPG8412G)
ASSESSEE BY : None
REVENUE BY : Shri Anil Jain, Senior DR
Date of Hearing : 08.06.2015
Date of Pronouncement : 08.06.2015
O R D E R
PER BENCH :
These appeals, at the instance of the assessee, are directed against
the order of the Commissioner of Income-tax, Dehradun dated 15.07.2013
and 12.07.2013 respectively. The relevant assessment year is 2009-10 .
2. When the matter was called up for hearing today i.e. 08.06.2015, no
one has appeared on behalf of the assessee. The assessee has not filed any
adjournment application also. On the last date of hearing, i.e. 27.02.2015,
2 ITA Nos.5552 & 5553/Del./2013
the matter was adjourned at the request of the assessee?s counsel and both
the parties were informed about the next date of hearing i.e. 08.06.2015.
In these circumstances, it appears that the assessee is not interested in
prosecuting the appeals. The appeals filed by the assessee are, therefore,
liable to be dismissed, for non-prosecution. Our above view finds support
from the following decisions :-
i. CIT vs. B.N. Bhattachargee & Anr. [118 ITR 461] wherein
their Lordships have held:
?The appeal does not mean merely filing of the appeal
but effectively pursuing it.?
ii. Estate of late Tukojirao Holkar vs. CWT [223 ITR 480
(M.P.)], wherein, while dismissing the reference made at the
instance of the assessee in default, their Lordships made the
?If the party, at whose instance the reference is made,
fails to appear at the hearing, or fails in taking steps
for preparation of the reference, the court is not bound
to answer the reference.?
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.
3 ITA Nos.5552 & 5553/Del./2013
(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
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
4 ITA Nos.5552 & 5553/Del./2013
because of incorrect address given by the appellant and proper
particulars not furnished so far. ”
5. 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.
6. In these terms, the appeals are technically dismissed as unadmitted.
Order pronounced in open court on this 8 day of June, 2015 after
the conclusion of the hearing.
(N.K. SAINI) (GEORGE GEORGE K)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER
Dated the 8 day of June, 2015
Copy forwarded to:
5.CIT(ITAT), New Delhi.