Appeal dismissed for non-appearance & address defect by ITAT Delhi, citing CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd.

The appeal before ITAT Delhi was dismissed as unadmitted due to the assessee's non-appearance and failure to rectify the address defect. The ITAT emphasized that the mere issuance of a notice does not automatically make the appeal admissible, citing the precedent set by CIT Vs. Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. The assessee was granted the liberty to correct the address and submit an appropriate application for a proper hearing, aligning with established principles on appeal admissibility before the Tribunal.

---

---

Issues:
Admissibility of appeal for hearing before ITAT Delhi.

Analysis:
The assessee filed appeals against the order of CIT (Appeals) for the assessment year 1997-98. However, on the date of the hearing, neither the assessee nor any representative appeared before the Tribunal, and no request for adjournment was made. Previous adjournments had been granted due to the assessee's counsel's request or non-appearance. A notice of hearing was sent to the address provided by the assessee, which was not returned unserved. As per Order 5 Rule 19A of the CPC read with section 282 of the Income-tax Act, 1961, the notice was deemed sufficient on the assessee.

Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 outlines 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 established that the mere issuance of a notice under Rule 19 does not automatically make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance by the assessee renders the appeal defective, and the assessee must rectify this by providing the correct address. Following the precedent set by the Multiplan case, the ITAT held the appeal to be unadmitted and technically dismissed it as such, granting the assessee the liberty to correct the address and move an appropriate application to ensure a proper hearing.

In conclusion, the ITAT Delhi dismissed the appeal as unadmitted based on the non-appearance of the assessee and the failure to rectify the address defect. The decision was in line with the principles established in previous cases regarding the admissibility of appeals for hearing before the Tribunal.

---