ITA No.79 of 2010 (O&M) -1- 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? 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 Section 260(A) of the Act (for brevity “the Act”) is directed against order dated 15.06.2009 passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, New Delhi (for brevity “the Tribunal”) in respect of assessment year 1992-93 in ITA No.2687/Del./2008. Before the Tribunal the ground raised was that the order of Asstt. Commissioner Income Tax, Karnal was barred by limitation as per the provisions of the Act. The assessee had claimed to have signed order sheet dated 4.4.1995. The assessee had alleged that the Revenue misplaced the record to save its skin and created a false story of misplacing the same in flood at Rohtak. ITA No.79 of 2010 (O&M) -2- The Tribunal placing reliance on the order dated 26.05.2005 rendered in ITA No.6525/Del/96 observed that such a plea raised earlier by the assessee was rejected on the ground that the presumption to the veracity of official record would attach which would tilt the balance against the assessee. Accordingly, the benefit of lost record has not been granted to the assessee – appellant because the issue had already been settled by the Tribunal in the order dated 26.05.2005 rendered in ITA No.6525/Del/96 and accordingly dismissed the appeal. Having heard the learned counsel for the appellant, we do not find that any question of law much less a substantial question of law would arise for determination by this court. The matter stands settled vide order dated 26.05.2005 and the benefit of lost record has rightly not been extended to the assessee – appellant. The appeal is wholly misconceived and does not warrant admission. The same is accordingly dismissed. Dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JITENDRA CHAUHAN) JUDGE 18-01-2010 manju