IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL DIVISION BENCH, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SMT. DIVA SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA NOS.742 & 743/CHD/2017 ASSESSMENT YEARS: 2010-11 & 2011-12 SMT. GINNY SOIN VS. PR. CIT(CENTRAL) H.NO. 31, GARDEN ENCLAVE LUDHIANA SOUTH CITY, LUDHIANA PAN NO. AGXPD4316Q (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) APPELLANT BY : NONE RESPONDENT BY : DR. GULSHAN RAI DATE OF HEARING : 06/09/2017 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07/09/2017 ORDER PER BENCH: BY THE ABOVEMENTIONED TWO APPEALS THE ASSESSEE ASSA ILS THE CORRECTNESS OF THE ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 OF THE INCOME TAX AC T, PASSED BY LD. CIT(CENTRAL), LUDHIANA. THE RECORD SHOWS THAT THE R EGISTRY HAS POINTED OUT VARIOUS DEFECTS IN THE PRESENT APPEAL SOME OF THEM BEING THAT THE RESPONDENT IS NOT CORRECTLY SHOWN IN THE APPEAL FORM IN COLUMN NO. 4 IN FORM NO. 36 AND ORDER UNDER SECTION 263 NOT READABLE IN COLUMN NO. 16 OF DEFECT NOTICE. TILL DATE THE DEFECT REMAINS NOT CURED. BY NOT CURING THE DEF ECT IT CAN BE SAFELY PRESUMED THAT THE ASSESSEE IS NOT SERIOUS IN PURSUI NG THE APPEAL FILED. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. 2. BEFORE PARTING IT IS APPROPRIATE TO ADD THAT IN CASE THE ASSESSEE IS ABLE TO SHOW THAT THERE WAS A REASONABLE CAUSE FOR NON REPR ESENTATION ON THE DATE OF HEARING AND IT UNDERTAKES TO ADDRESS THE DEFECT POI NTED OUT BY THE REGISTRY, IT 2 WOULD BE AT LIBERTY, IF SO ADVISED TO PRAY FOR A RE CALL OF THIS ORDER. THE SAID ORDER WAS PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT AT THE TIME OF HEA RING ITSELF. 3. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED IN LIMINI. THE ORDER IS PRONOUNCED ON 07/09/2017 IN THE OPEN COURT. SD/- SD/- (DIVA SINGH) (DR. B.R.R. KUMAR) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER DATED : 07/09/2017 AG COPY TO: 1. THE APPELLANT 2. THE RESPONDENT 3. THE CIT 4. THE CIT(A) 5. THE DR