SHRI MANISH KUMAR, JALANDHAR V. INCOME TAX OFFICER WARD-2 ( 2), JALANDHAR

ITA 365/ASR/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 130 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 5438 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 20-08-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Next Hearing Date: 19-08-2024
• Assessment Year: misc
• Appeal Filed On: 19-06-2024
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR BEFORE DR. M. L. MEENA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No. 365/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2012-13 Manish Kumar 4 Mohalla No. 6 Patel Road, Jalandhar Cantt. Punjab [PAN: BDQPK 9723A] (Appellant) Vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2(2), Jalandhar (Respondent) Appellant by Respondent by : : None Sh. Himanshu, Sr. D. R. Date of Hearing Date of Pronouncement : : 20.08.2024 21.08.2024 ORDER Per Dr. M. L. Meena, AM: The captioned appeal has been filed by the assessee against the order of the ld. CIT(A) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi dated 18.04.2024 in respect of Assessment Year: 2012-13. 2 ITA No. 365/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO 2. None attended nor has any adjournment application been filed by the assessee on verification of Form No. 36 of the appeal filed by the appellant, deficiency noted by the registry and deficiency letter dated 25.06.2024 was issued to the appellant assessee on the postal address given in Form No. 36 and the e-mail address as well. The deficiency letter pointed out the following defects in the memorandum of appeal in Form No. 36 filed by the appellant assessee: 1. Appeal fee is short by Rs.9200/- 2. The appeal was time-barred by 2 days The appellant did not file the grounds of appeal raised before the ld. CIT(A) in the memorandum of appeal filed in Form No. 36 before the ld. CIT(A). Further, there was a delay of 2 days in filing the appeal. The ld. DR has no objection and hence, the delay of 2 days is condoned. 3. It is seen that the deficiency letter issued by the registry under Rule 4A of the ITAT Rules after scrutiny of the memorandum of appeal and one opportunity to the appellant assessee was granted to rectify the defects. However, the appellant has failed to remove the aforesaid deficiencies as pointed out by the registry and did not attend the hearing nor filed 3 ITA No. 365/Asr/2024 Manish Kumar v. ITO adjournment application before the Tribunal. Thus, appellant has not even bothered to file adjournment application which shows that he is not interested in rectifying the deficiencies pointed out by the registry in the memorandum of appeal as above and but he is not interested in pursuing the appeal. 4. In view of the above, we hold that the failure on the part of the appellant in rectifying the mistakes in the memorandum of appeal is not a curable defect. Accordingly, we hold that the appeal is not admitted under the law and it is dismissed as not maintainable. However, the appellant assessee shall be at liberty to revive the appeal, on rectifying the deficiencies pointed out in the memorandum of appeal by the registry. 5. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed as not admitted. Order pronounced in the open court on 21.08.2024 Sd/- Sd/- (Udayan Dasgupta) (Dr. M. L. Meena) Judicial Member Accountant Member *GP/Sr.PS* Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant: (2) The Respondent: (3) The CIT concerned (4) The Sr. DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By Order