2013 (5) TMI 749 - AT - Income Tax

Maintainability of appeal - Held that - Considering a paper book containing 1044 pages available on record are not as per the Tribunal rules because in the Index of the paper book, there is no certificate given by the assessee as to whether these pages in the paper book were furnished before the authorities below and if yes, then which paper was furnished with which authority. Moreover, as per sub-rule 6 of Rule 18 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963, only those documents which are referred to and relied upon by the parties during the course of argument shall alone be treated as part of record of the Tribunal. As per sub Rule 7 of Rule 18, it is also prescribed that the papers /paper book not confirming to sub-Rules 1-6 of rule 18 are liable to be ignored. In the present case, the assessee has neither complied with sub-rule 7 of rule 18 nor with sub-rule 1-6 of Rule 18 and hence, this paper book filed by the assessee cannot be treated as part of the record of the Tribunal and the same is liable to be ignored. As there is no valid paper book on record and there is nobody present before the Tribunal on behalf of the assessee to make any argument in respect of these two appeals of the assessee decline to interfere in both these orders of CIT(A) to decide the validity of reassessment proceedings against assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Adjournment sought by the appellant on vague reasons, Ex-parte decision due to absence of authorized representative, Restoration of appeals by Tribunal, Validity of reassessment proceedings, Compliance with Tribunal rules for paper book, Merits of various additions in appeal.

Analysis:
The judgment pertains to two appeals by the same assessee against two separate orders of the Ld. CIT(A) for the same assessment year. The appellant's representative sought adjournments on vague grounds, leading to multiple delays in the hearing. Despite repeated adjournments, the authorized representative failed to appear before the Tribunal, resulting in an ex-parte decision against the assessee. The absence of a competent representative during the hearing led to the rejection of the adjournment application and the subsequent decision on the appeals without the appellant's participation.

The Tribunal noted that the appeals were restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) to decide the validity of reassessment proceedings. The Ld. CIT(A) ruled against the assessee on this issue in the impugned order. Additionally, the Tribunal recalled its earlier order to decide on the merits of various additions raised by the assessee in the appeal. The judgment highlighted the importance of addressing specific issues raised in the appeals, including the validity of reassessment proceedings and the merits of additional grounds brought before the Tribunal.

Regarding the compliance with Tribunal rules for the paper book, the judgment emphasized the necessity of following the prescribed rules. The appellant failed to provide a valid paper book as per the Tribunal rules, leading to its exclusion from the record. The non-compliance with the rules regarding the submission of documents and the lack of certification by the assessee resulted in the paper book being disregarded by the Tribunal.

Ultimately, the Tribunal found no flaws in the orders of the Ld. CIT(A) upon reviewing the case. Despite the absence of a valid paper book and the appellant's representative during the hearing, the Tribunal declined to interfere with the decisions of the Ld. CIT(A) in both appeals. As a result, the Tribunal dismissed both appeals of the assessee, with the order pronounced in open court on the specified date.