KULSUMA AKHTER,SRINAGAR vs. ITO, SRINAGAR
Facts
The assessee filed an appeal against an order passed under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. However, the appeal memorandum in Form 36 was unsigned, and despite multiple notices to the assessee and their counsel, this defect was not rectified. The appeal was also belated by eighty days.
Held
The tribunal dismissed the appeal as not valid due to the unrectified defect in the appeal memorandum and the lack of representation or response from the assessee or their counsel. The tribunal noted the assessee's apparent lack of interest in pursuing the appeal but granted liberty to apply for recall after rectifying the defects.
Key Issues
The key legal issues were the validity of the appeal due to an unsigned memorandum and the assessee's failure to rectify defects or appear despite repeated notices, along with the appeal being belated.
Sections Cited
Section 250, Section 144
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AMRITSAR BENCH, AMRITSAR.
Before: SH. MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL & SH. UDAYAN DASGUPTA
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 Vs. ITO, Ward 2, Iddgah Srinagar, Kashmir. Srinagar. [PAN:-AUKPA7208A] (Appellant) (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.
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 gowherzaman@gmail.com, 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
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
I.T.A. No. 618/Asr/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 4
