GAGANDEEP SINGH ALAG, MUMBAI V. ITO 21(2)(1), MUMBAI

ITA 2263/MUM/2014

• Counselvise Citation: 226319914 RSA 2014
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 5 month(s) 26 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-09-2015
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 24-09-2015
• Assessment Year: 2008-2009
• Appeal Filed On: 03-04-2014
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Section: 143(3)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ' SMC ' BENCH, MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI D. MANMOHAN, VICE PRESIDENT ITA NO. 2263/MUM/2014 (ASSESSMENT YEAR: 2008 - 09 ) GAGANDEEP SINGH ALAG VS. INCOME TAX OFFICER - 21(2)(1) 5, LOVEKUSH, SINDHI SOCIETY CHEMBUR, MUMBAI 400071 BANDRA ESTATE MUMBAI PAN - ADZPA6654F APPELLANT RESPONDENT APPELLANT BY: NONE RESPONDENT BY: SHRI JEEVAN LAL LAVIDIYA DATE OF HEARING: 29.09. 2015 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 29 .0 9 .2015 O R D E R PER D. MANMOHAN, V.P. THIS IS AN APPEAL BY THE ASSESSEE AND IT APPEARS TO HAVE BEEN DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY CIT(A) - 32, MUMBAI. 2. THOUGH NOTICES WERE ISSUED FROM TIME TO TIME AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE AT THE ADDRESS GIVEN IN FORM NO. 36 NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE. I THEREFORE DISPOSE OF THE APPEAL EXPARTE, QUA ASSESSEE. 3. AT THE TIME OF FILING THE APPEAL THE REGISTRY NOTICED THAT THERE ARE SEVERAL DEFECTS IN THE APPEAL MEMO IN AS MUCH AS THE RESPONDENT IS SHOWN AS CIT(A) - 32/ITO 21(2)(1) WHEREAS RULE 13 OF THE A PPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES, 1963 STATES THAT IN AN APPEAL FILED BY AN ASSESSEE ONLY THE AO CONCERNED SHALL BE MADE RESPONDENT. RULE 8 OF THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL RULES REFERS TO WHAT SHOULD CONSTITUTE THE MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL. RULE 12 EMPOWERS THE TRIBUNAL TO R EJECT A MEMORANDUM OF APPEAL, WHICH IS NOT FILED IN THE PRESCRIBED FORM OR RETURN IT FOR BEING A MENDED WITHIN SUCH TIME AS IT MAY ALLOW. ITA NO. 2263/MUM/2014 GAGANDEEP SINGH ALAG 2 4. D EFECT MEMO WAS ISSUED BY THE REGISTRY SPECIFYING THAT APPELLANTS NAME AND ASSESSMENT YEAR IN FORM NO. 36 DO N OT MATCH WITH THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) ENCLOSED TO FORM NO. 36; ASSESSMENT YEAR IN FORM NO. 36 IS SHOWN AS 2008 - 09 WHEREAS IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT IS SHOWN AS A.Y. 2009 - 10. SIMILARLY IN FORM NO. 36 THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN AS GAGANDEEP SINGH ALAG WHEREAS IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT(A) IT IS SHOWN AS SHRI GANGADEEP SINGH ALAG. IT MAY BE NOTICED THAT EVEN IN THE ASSESSMENT ORDER THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE IS SHOWN AS GANGADEEP SINGH A. ALAG WHEREAS IN THE CAUSE TITLE AS WELL IN THE VERIFICATION COL UMN ASSESSEE S NA ME IS SHOWN AS GAGANDEEP SINGH ALAG . COLUMN NO. 4 OF FORM NO. 36 IS NOT FILLED IN. THEREFORE IT IS NO T KNOWN WHETHER ASSESSEE IS FILING AN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED BY THE AO UNDER SECTION 143(3) AND THE YEAR OF THE ORDER. SINCE THER E ARE SO MANY DEFECTS AND THE ASSESSEE HAS NOT RECTIFIED THE DEFECTS DESPITE POSTING THE CASE ON NUMBER OF OCCASIONS, I HAVE NO OTHER ALTERNATIVE EXCEPT TO DISMISS THE APPEAL AS UNADMITTED ON THE GROUND THAT THE APPEAL IS DEFECTIVE. 5. SINCE IN FORM NO. 36 TH E ASSESSMENT YEAR SHOWN IS 2008 - 09 THE APPEAL HAS TO BE TREATED AS AN APPEAL FILED FOR A.Y. 2008 - 09 WHEREAS THE APPEAL PAPERS PERTAIN TO A.Y. 2009 - 10. INSTITUTION FEES ALSO WAS PAID FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 WHEREAS NO APPEAL WAS FILED FOR A.Y. 2009 - 10 AND HENCE , GOING BY FORM NO. 36 AND THE ASSESSMENT YEAR REFERRED TO THEREIN NO INSTITUTION FEES CAN BE SAID TO HAVE BEEN PAID BY THE ASSESSEE. 6. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED AS UNADMITTED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 29 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015. SD/ - (D. MANMOHAN) VICE PRESIDENT MUMBAI, DATED: 29 TH SEPTEMBER , 2015 ITA NO. 2263/MUM/2014 GAGANDEEP SINGH ALAG 3 COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT(A) 32 , MUMBAI 4. THE CIT 21 , MUMBAI CITY 5. THE DR, SMC BENCH, ITAT, MUMBAI BY ORDER //TRUE COPY// ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ITAT, MUMBAI BENCHES, MUMBAI