2014 (5) TMI 700 - AT - Income Tax

Appeal Dismissed for Non-Attendance and Incorrect Address: Upholding Procedural Standards and Addressing Merit

The ITAT dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-attendance and incorrect address, following Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules and the precedent in CIT vs ... Admission of appeal – Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 - Held that:- Following Commissioner Of Income-Tax. Versus Multiplan India (Private) Limited [1991 (5) TMI 120 - ITAT DELHI-D] - 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 - the appeal to be unadmitted with a liberty to assessee to move appropriate application and correct the defect in the memo about its address to ensure a proper hearing of the appeal – Decided against Assessee. Issues:Admissibility of appeal for hearing based on non-attendance and incorrect address.Analysis:The appeal was filed by the assessee against an order dated 13.05.2012 of the CIT(A)-XV, New Delhi for the 2007-08 assessment year. However, during the hearing, no one was present, and the appeal was passed over twice. The notice sent to the assessee's address came back with the comment 'left without address.' Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 specifies the conditions for the admissibility of an appeal for hearing. The ITAT referred to the case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. where it was observed that the issuance of notice under Rule 19 does not automatically make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance and incorrect address render the appeal defective, and the assessee must correct the address to ensure proper hearing of the appeal.The ITAT emphasized that the appeal must be corrected by providing the proper address to rectify the defect. Following the precedent set in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd., the ITAT held the appeal to be unadmitted, granting the assessee the liberty to rectify the address-related issue by submitting an appropriate application. The order was pronounced on the same hearing date, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed in limine. The decision was made in line with ensuring proper and expedited disposal of appeals, discouraging appeals filed without due consideration and for extraneous reasons. The significance of Rule 19(2) was highlighted to clarify that the mere issuance of a notice does not imply the automatic admission of the appeal, and the correctness of the appeal is typically assessed during the hearing stage.In conclusion, the ITAT dismissed the appeal due to the assessee's non-attendance and the incorrect address provided, in adherence to the principles outlined in Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules and the precedent set in the case of Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. The judgment underscores the importance of complying with procedural requirements to ensure the proper conduct of appeal hearings and the efficient administration of justice in tax matters.