Income Tax Appellate Tribunal - Hyderabad
Gayatri Associates, Secunderabad, ... vs Ito, Ward-10(2), Hyderabad, Hyderabad on 12 January, 2018
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
HYDERABAD BENCHES "A" BENCH: HYDERABAD
BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT AND
SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER
M.A. No.02/Hyd/2017
(Arising out of ITA. No.261/Hyd/2016)
Assessment Year: 2005-2006
Gayatri Associates, vs. Income Tax Officer,
Secunderabad. Ward-10(2),
PAN: AAFFG 6635 E Hyderabad.
(Appellant) (Respondent)
For Assessee: Shri Samuel Nagadesi
For Revenue : Smt. Suman Malik, DR
Date of Hearing : 12.01.2018
Date of Pronouncement : 12.01.2018
ORDER
PER D. MANMOHAN, VP.
By this application assessee seeks recall of the order dated 22.09.2016 in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 24 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules.
2. At the outset it may be noted that the Registry noticed several defects upon scrutinising appeal papers filed by the assessee. Accordingly a defect notice was issued. Though the appeal was posted for hearing from time to time, none of the defects, as pointed out, were rectified by the assessee and in fact none appeared for the assessee before the Tribunal. Therefore, in exercise of the powers vested under Rule 9(3) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, the Tribunal dismissed the appeal as unadmitted.
3. Ld Counsel for the assessee submits that since the appeal is dismissed, it may not be proper for him to rectify the defects at this stage and therefore, the assessee has chosen not to file any papers as 2 of now. However, he wises to file the same if the order is recalled. He also submits that under Rule 4A of the Appellate Tribunal Rules, any defective appeal, if not rectified by the party concerned, should have been returned to the assessee but in the instant case it was dismissed outright and thus the assessee could not rectify the defects.
4. We have also heard the Learned Departmental Representative and carefully perused the record. The fact remains that the defects were not cured by the assessee though it was specifically mentioned in the appeal memo that in the absence of curing the defects within a prescribed period appeal shall be dismissed. Therefore, the Tribunal had no other alternative except to invoke the provisions of Rule 9(3) of the Appellate Tribunal Rules and reject the appeal papers outright by treating the appeal as unadmitted. There is not much of difference between Rule 4A and Rule 9 inasmuch as in both the situations the Tribunal has been given the power to reject the appeal papers if the defects are not cured. Since the appeal is not disposed of on merits, the assessee, if so advised, can always prefer a fresh appeal without any defects and subject to furnishing reasons for the delay in filing the appeal it can always be reconsidered. We are not expressing any view as to whether any appeal can be filed or not. However, the fact remains that the order passed by the Tribunal does not contain any mistake apparent on record since the Bench invoked Rule 9 of the Appellate Tribunal Rules as the assessee had not rectified the mistakes.
5. In the result, Miscellaneous Application filed by the assessee is dismissed. Pronounced accordingly in the open court on 12th January, 2018.
Sd/- Sd/-
(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) (D. MANMOHAN)
ACCOUNTANT MEMBER VICE PRESIDENT
Hyderabad, Dated: 12th January, 2018.
3
OKK, Sr.PS
Copy to
1. Gayatri Associates, Secunderabad. C/o. Mr. Samuel Nagadesi, Chartered Acco8untant, 408, Sri Ramakarishna Towers, Beside Image Hospitals, Nagarjuna Nagar, Ameerpet, Hyderabad-
073.
2. Income Tax Officer, Ward - 10 (2), Room No.514, A-Block, IT Towers, A.C. Guards, Hyderabad - 500 028.
3. CIT (A)-8, Hyderabad.
4. Pr. CIT-6, Hyderabad.
5. DR, ITAT, Hyderabad.
6. Guard File