IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R.SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.465 /CHD/2014 ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 MRS.PARVINDER KAUR, VS. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER , 3200, PHASE II, WARD VI(2), URBAN ESTATE DUGRI, LUDHIANA. LUDHIANA. PAN: AAXPK8830D (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : SHRI MANJIT SINGH, DR DATE OF HEARING : 15.07.2014 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 24.07.2014 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M. : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS AGAINST THE OR DER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX(APPEALS)-II, LUDHIANA DA TED 11.10.2013 AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 143(3) OF IN COME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). 2. THE MEMO OF APPEAL WAS RECEIVED BY POST IN THE R EGISTRY. THE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT-CUM-NOTICE OF HEARING FIXING TH E APPEAL ON 15.7.2013 WAS SENT BY POST TO THE ADDRESS OF THE AS SESSEE WHICH IS MENTIONED AT SR.NO.10 OF THE MEMO OF APPEAL. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITY WITH THE REMAR K LEFT. THE ASSESSEE HAD NOT PROVIDED ANY ALTERNATE ADDRESS OF COMMUNICATION AND IN THE ABSENCE OF THE SAME NOTICE OF HEARING C ANNOT BE SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE. IN VIEW THEREOF, THE APPEAL FI LED BY THE 2 ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE AS NONE APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE ASSESSEE ON THE SAID DATE OF HEARING. ANOTHER ASP ECT OF THE APPEAL WAS THAT THE VERIFICATION HAS NOT BEEN CORRECTLY MA DE IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL AND IN VIEW THEREOF ALSO THE APPEAL IS NO T MAINTAINABLE. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINE. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 24 TH DAY OF JULY, 2014. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED : 24 TH JULY, 2014 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH