Skip to content


Wealth-tax Officer Vs. Karodimal Thawardas. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
CourtIncome Tax Appellate Tribunal ITAT Jabalpur
Decided On
Reported in(1986)17ITD333Jab
AppellantWealth-tax Officer
RespondentKarodimal Thawardas.
Excerpt:
.....the notice of hearing on the respondent and in this letter it was also pointed out that the defects pointed out in the memo dated 23-8-1982, copy of which was enclosed, had to been rectified and these should be rectified immediately. again on 24-1-1984, a letter was written to the wto, balaghat, pointing out that the appeals have been fixed for hearing on 22-2-1984 and in this letter also it was pointed out that the defects pointed out in the memo dated 23-8-1982 had not been removed.4. as regards the six appeals relating to the orders purported to have been made by the wto under section 18(1) (b), similar memo dated 23-8-1982 pointing out the defects was issued. as pointed out supra, in the letter dated 24-1-1984, the wto, balaghat was apprised of the fixation of the appeals.....
Judgment:
Per Shri S. K. Chander, Accountant Member - This fascicle of appeals was presented by hand by the department on 12-6-1982 at the residence of the Assistant Registrar of this Bench. The last date for filing these appeals was 12-6-1982. 12-6-1982 was a second Saturday of the month of June 1982. On 14-2-1982 the Assistant Registrar of the registry of this Tribunal made an order sheet noting that certified copy of the copy of the AACs order in duplicate and copies of the ITOs order in duplicate not filed. This nothing was made on the docket for each of Appeal Nos. 183 to 194 of 1982. Before we proceed further, we would like to clarify the appeals bearing WT Appeal Nos. 183 to 188 of 1982 relate to the orders purported to have been made by the WTO under section 18(1) (a) of the Wealth-tax Act, 1957 (the Act) and rest of the appeals relate to the orders purported to have been made by the WTO under section 18(1) (b). All these 12 appeals, thus, relate to the assessment year 1969-70 to 1974-75 only. In the first bunch of appeals there is a covering letter dated 12-6-1982, where the WTO, Balaghat, M.P., himself states that he is submitting the following documents : (ii) Certified copy of the Commissioners order under section 253 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 directing the appeal.

On reference to the order made by the Commissioner, Jabalpur (M. P.), it is seen that the learned Commissioner had made the order authorising the WTO under section 24(2) of the Act on 11-6-1982. In the endorsement of this order bearing F. No. AB/ (Judl.) /154 dated 11-6-1982, the ITO (Judl.) for the Commissioner, Jabalpur (M. P.) has forwarded the above order of the Commissioner dated 11-6-1982 for information and necessary action of the WTO Balaghat, directing him that "the appeal petition with grounds of appeal (in triplicate) accompanied by (i) a certified copy of the appellate order appealed against (which is sent herewith) with an extra copy of the same and two copies of the assessment order, (ii) a certified copy of the Commissioners order under section 24(2) (enclosed) directing an appeal should be forwarded by registered post/through special messenger to the Assistant Registrar, W. T. A. T., Jabalpur so as to reach him well before 12-6-1982 which is the last date for filing the appeal." 2. On receipt of these papers the registry of the Tribunal as described supra, docketed the appeals but immediately wrote a memo bearing WT Appeal Nos. 183 to 188 (Jab.) of 1982 dated 23-8-1982 to the WTO, Balaghat, pointing out that the appeals received on 12-6-1982 were defective on the ground that certified copy of the AACs order appealed against for each of the assessment year had not been filed. It was also pointed out to the WTO for each of the assessment year had also not been filed.

3. The above defects, however, were not removed. These appeals, therefore, were fixed for hearing on 15-12-1983 and for this purpose on 5-12-1983 a letter was sent to the WTO, Balaghat for serving the notice of hearing on the respondent and in this letter it was also pointed out that the defects pointed out in the memo dated 23-8-1982, copy of which was enclosed, had to been rectified and these should be rectified immediately. Again on 24-1-1984, a letter was written to the WTO, Balaghat, pointing out that the appeals have been fixed for hearing on 22-2-1984 and in this letter also it was pointed out that the defects pointed out in the memo dated 23-8-1982 had not been removed.

4. As regards the six appeals relating to the orders purported to have been made by the WTO under section 18(1) (b), similar memo dated 23-8-1982 pointing out the defects was issued. As pointed out supra, in the letter dated 24-1-1984, the WTO, Balaghat was apprised of the fixation of the appeals bearing WT Appeal Nos. 183 to 194 (Jab.) of 1982 on 22-2-1984 and was also it was pinted out that defects pointed out in the memos dated 23-8-1982 had not been removed.

5. The senior authorised representative of the Income-tax Department filed an application on 21-2-1984 with a prayer that the appeals may kindly be adjourned and fixed on another date because records from "ITO/AAC/Commissioner (Appeals) which are absolutely necessary for proper presentation of the appeal have not been received." 6. When these appeals were called on for hearing, the departmental representative did not have the records. His request for adjournment was rejected and the appeals were considered from all the angles for disposal.

7. Under rule 9 of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Rules, 1963, as amended from time to time, every memorandum of appeal shall be in triplicate and shall be accompanied by two copies (at least one of which shall be certified copy) of the order appealed against and two copies of the memorandum of appeal in its direction to the Tribunal to accept a memorandum of appeal in its discretion which is not accompanied by all or any of the documents referred to in sub-rule (1) of rule 9 supra. The factual narration given above shows that when the appeals were presented on 12-6-1982 at the residence of the Assistant Registrar on a holiday, these were accepted. All the appeals, as clearly described above, did not have any of the documents required under rule 9 except the memo of appeals and the order of the Commissioner, Jabalpur (M. P.) under section 24(2). Therefore, the manner of handling all these appeals by the revenue shows apathetic attitude as no effort had been made to remove the defects which were pointed out to the revenue, as early as in August 1982. All these appeals are apparently incompetent and defective. More than sufficient time for removing the defects had been given with due notices to the revenue was mentioned supra. Since the defects have not been removed and no copies of the orders of the authorities below have been filed, there is no order before us against which these appeals can be said to have been filed to give any grievance to the revenue. We, therefore, determine these appeals as incompetent and dismiss them in limine.


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //