M/S Super Footwear, G.t. Road, Karnal v. Asstt. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karnal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Income Tax Appeal No.79 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision : 18-01-2010 M/s Super Footwear, G.T. Road, Karnal ....Appellant VERSUS Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karnal ...Respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present: Mr. Rajesh Garg, Advocate, for the appellant. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The instant appeal filed by the assessee under Section260(A) of the Act (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against order dated15.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi(for brevity “the Tribunal”) in respect of assessment year 1992-93 inITA No.2687/Del./2008. Before the Tribunal the ground raised wasthat the order of Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, Karnal was barredby limitation as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee hadclaimed to have signed order sheet dated 4.4.1995. The assesseehad alleged that the Revenue misplaced the record to save its skinand created a false story of misplacing the same in flood at Rohtak. The Tribunal placing reliance on the order dated 26.05.2005rendered in ITA No.6525/Del/96 observed that such a plea raisedearlier by the assessee was rejected on the ground that thepresumption to the veracity of official record would attach whichwould tilt the balance against the assessee. Accordingly, the benefitof lost record has not been granted to the assessee – appellantbecause the issue had already been settled by the Tribunal in theorder dated 26.05.2005 rendered in ITA No.6525/Del/96 andaccordingly dismissed the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we donot find that any question of law much less a substantial question oflaw would arise for determination by this court. The matter standssettled vide order dated 26.05.2005 and the benefit of lost record hasrightly not been extended to the assessee – appellant. The appeal iswholly misconceived and does not warrant admission. The same isaccordingly dismissed. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE