The Dy. Commissioner of Income-tax, Jammu V. Shri Raj Kumar Alias Prop., Jammu

ITA 380/ASR/2013

• Counselvise Citation: 38020914 RSA 2013
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 29 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 06-09-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2005-2006
• Appeal Filed On: 07-06-2013
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: P N ARORA

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH; AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. H.S. SIDHU, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SH. B.P. JAIN, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER I.T.A. NO. 380 & 381(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 PAN: ABSPK3429J DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF VS. SHRI. RAJ KUMAR ALI AS PROP. INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-2, RAJU CHOWDHARY PROP. AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JAMMU H.O. K.C. MARKET, JAMMU (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY: SH. TARSEM LAL, DR RESPONDENT BY: SH. P.N. ARORA, ADVOCATE DATE OF HEARING: 06.09.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 06.09.2013 ORDER PER BENCH 1) THE REVENUE HAS FILED THE PRESENT TWO APPE ALS AGAINST IMPUGNED ORDERS EACH DATED 20.03.2013 PASSED BY THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS), JAMMU. 2 I.T.A. NO. 380 & 381(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 2) AS PER THE RECORD, THE REVENUE HAS FILED BOTH TH E APPEALS ON 07.06.2013 AND THE REGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT THE FOL LOWING DEFECT IN THE PRESENT APPEAL, WHICH WAS COMMUNICATED TO THE APPEL LANT VIDE DEFECT MEMO DATED 19.06.2013: 1. 380 381 ()/2013 5 I 3) THE REGISTRY AGAIN ISSUED REMINDER ON 16.07.2013 TO THE APPELLANT BUT DESPITE THIS THE APPELLANT HAS NOT CO MPLIED WITH THE SAME. 4) THE REGISTRY FIXED THE PRESENT APPEALS BEFORE T HIS BENCH FOR 06.09.2013 BY ISSUING RPAD BUT TILL DATE THE APPELL ANT HAS NOT RECTIFIED THE AFORESAID DEFECT. 5) KEEPING IN VIEW THE AFORESAID FACTS AND CIRCUMST ANCES THAT THE APPELLANT HAS NOT RECTIFIED THE DEFECT AS POINTED O UT BY THE REGISTRY VIDE DEFECT MEMO, WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE APPELLANT IS NOT INTERESTED TO PROSECUTE THE MATTERS IN DISPUTE. THEREFORE, THE PR ESENT APPEALS ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE, BEING DEFECTIVE WITH THE LIBER TY TO THE APPELLANT TO FILE AN APPLICATION FOR RECALLING OF THIS ORDER, IF SO ADVISED, BUT ONLY AFTER RECTIFYING THE DEFECT AS POINTED OUT BY THE REGISTR Y IN THE SAID DEFECT MEMO AND THAT APPLICATION WOULD BE DECIDED UNDER TH E LAW. 3 I.T.A. NO. 380 & 381(ASR)/2013 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2005-06 & 2006-07 6) IN THE RESULT, BOTH THE APPEALS FILED BY THE REV ENUE ARE DISMISSED IN LIMINE, BEING DEFECTIVE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 SD/./ SD/./- (B.P. JAIN) (H.S. SIDHU) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 6 TH SEPTEMBER, 2013 /RK/ COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO: 1. THE ASSESSEE: SHRI. RAJ KUMAR ALIAS PROP. RAJU CHOW DHARY PROP. H.O. K.C. MARKET, JAMMU 2. THE DCIT, CIRCLE-2, AAYAKAR BHAWAN, JAMMU 3. THE CIT(A), JAMMU 4. THE CIT, JAMMU 5. THE SR DR, I.T.A.T., ASR TRUE COPY BY ORDER (ASSISTANT REGISTRAR) INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AMRITSAR BENCH: AMRITSAR.