2014 (6) TMI 176 - AT - Income Tax

Admissibility of appeal as per Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 - Held that - Following CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. 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 appeals are to be held as unadmitted with a liberty to assessee to move appropriate application and explaining the reasons for its non-appearance if so advised and pray for a recall of the order and adjudication on merits Decided against Assessee.

Summary

Issues:
Appeals filed against penalty orders u/s 271(1)(c) & 271(1)(b) for 2006-07 assessment years. Non-appearance of the assessee during the hearing.

Analysis:
The appeals were filed against penalty orders, but during the hearing, no one appeared on behalf of the assessee. The bench adjourned the hearing based on the assessee's request, but even in subsequent hearings, there was no representation or request for adjournment. The tribunal noted that the assessee's lack of seriousness in pursuing the appeals based on the history of adjournments.

Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules, 1963 outlines the conditions for the admissibility of appeals for hearing. The tribunal referred to the case of CIT vs Multiplan (India) Pvt. Ltd. where it was emphasized that the mere issuance of notice under Rule 19 does not automatically make the appeal admissible. Non-attendance by the appellant renders the appeal defective, requiring correction by providing the correct address. The tribunal held the appeals as unadmitted in line with the principles established in the Multiplan case.

Following the precedent set by the Multiplan case, the tribunal dismissed the appeals as unadmitted, granting the assessee the opportunity to submit an appropriate application explaining the reasons for non-appearance and seeking a recall of the order for adjudication on merits. The final decision to dismiss the appeals was made on the hearing date itself, with the appeals being rejected in limine due to the assessee's failure to appear.

In conclusion, the appeals were dismissed due to the assessee's continuous non-appearance during the hearings, leading to the tribunal deeming the appeals unadmitted as per Rule 19 of the ITAT Rules. The assessee was given the chance to provide reasons for non-appearance and request a recall for further adjudication on merits.