KULSUMA AKHTER,SRINAGAR V. ITO, SRINAGAR

ITA 618/ASR/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by M/s Kulsuma Akhter against the order of the CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, which was originally based on the order of the Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srinagar. The appeal was dismissed due to procedural deficiencies, including an unsigned appeal memorandum and non-compliance with multiple notices issued to the assessee and their chartered accountant. The Tribunal highlighted the lack of interest from the assessee in pursuing the appeal, as evidenced by the failure to respond to notices and rectify defects in the appeal documentation.

• Counselvise Citation: [2026] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 839703 (ITAT-AMRITSAR)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 3 month(s) 11 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 26-02-2026
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Appeal Filed On: 15-11-2024
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: CHARAN DASS
• Section: 144

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR. BEFORE SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA, JUDICIAL MEMBER (Physical Hearing) I.T.A. No. 618/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 M/s Kulsuma Akhter, Braripora Iddgah Srinagar, Kashmir. [PAN:-AUKPA7208A] (Appellant) Vs. ITO, Ward 2, Srinagar. (Respondent) Appellant by None Respondent by Sh. Charan Dass, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 21.01.2026 Date of Pronouncement 26.02.2026 ORDER Per: Udayan Dasgupta, J.M.: This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of ld. CIT (A), NFAC, Delhi, passed u/s 250 of the Act, 1961 vide order dated 28.06.2024 which has emanated from the order of AO, Income Tax Officer, Ward-2, Srinagar, passed u/s 144 of the Act, vide order dated 11.12.2019. 2. There is no representation by the assessee or his counsel on repeated calls neither physically nor in virtual mode and no adjournment application is on record. Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 618/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 2 2.1 It is pointed out by the registry that the appeal is defective in as much the verification of the appeal memorandum in form 36, has been left blank (unsigned) and even though notices has been issued to the assessee on seven separate dates, the first notice being issued on 23rd January, 2025 and the seventh on 24th November, 2025 in the email id provided in Form 36 [e-mail], the said deficiency has not been rectified till the date of hearing. 2.2 It is noted from the POA enclosed , with the memorandum, that the above email id belongs to the chartered accountant of the assessee CA Sofi Gowher Mohammad of Srinagar , but there is no response from the counsel, (in spite of his signature appearing in form 36 under A/R column ) and there is no compliance to the number of notices issued in his given mail id and the notices issued to the assessee vide registered post at the address in form 36, has been returned with postal remark “No such person found”. 3. We also note that the appeal is belated by eighty days (as noted by the registry). 3.1 However, we cannot proceed with this appeal, to adjudicate on merits, unless the verification defect existing in the appeal memorandum is removed ( cured ) and in the absence of any response or compliance from the assessee or his appointed counsel, in spite of the defect being pointed out nearly twelve months earlier (notices being issued through given email of the counsel on record), we are of the opinion Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 618/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 3 that the assessee is not interested in pursuing the appeal and as such we refuse to entertain the appeal and we reject this appeal as not valid. 3.2 However, we give liberty to the assessee to apply for recall of this order, after rectification of existing defects, as per procedure laid down by law within the specified time frame, if he/she, so desires. 4. In the result the appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced on 26.02.2026 under Rule 34(4) of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Rules 1963. Sd/- Sd/- (MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL) (UDAYAN DASGUPTA) Accountant Member Judicial Member AKV Copy of the order forwarded to: (1)The Appellant (2) The Respondent (3) The CIT (4)The DR, I.T.A.T. True Copy By order Printed from counselvise.com I.T.A. No. 618/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4 Printed from counselvise.com "