LATE RADHA BALASUBRAMANYAM SALLA L/R BY BALASUBRAMANYAM S.M.,HYDERABAD vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-6(3), HYDERABAD
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal set aside the order of the Pr. CIT and remanded the issue to the file of the CIT. The CIT was directed to re-issue notice to the legal heir and provide a fair opportunity of hearing before deciding the issue.
What were the facts?
The assessee passed away after the initiation of proceedings under Section 263 but before the CIT passed the order. The legal heir was not given an opportunity to represent the case.
What were the issues?
Whether the order passed under Section 263 is valid when the assessee died before its pronouncement and the legal heir was not heard.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Hyderabad ‘ B ‘ Bench, Hyderabad
Before: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri A. Mohan Alankamony
This is assessee’s appeal for the A.Y 2013-14 against the order of the Pr. CIT-6, Hyderabad, dated 22.3.2019 u/s 263 of the I.T. Act.
At the outset it is submitted that the legal heir of the assessee has been brought on record since the assessee has died on 5.10.2018 whereas the CIT has passed order u/s 263 on 22.3.2019. It is submitted that when the 263 proceedings were initiated on 29.8.2018, the assessee was alive but subsequently, he had passed away on 5.10.2018 and being oblivious of this fact, the CIT passed order u/s 263 of the Act. The learned Counsel for the assessee prayed for a remand of the issue to the file of the CIT so that the legal heir can represent the matter and explain the case to the CIT. These facts are not disputed by the learned DR and therefore, we deem it fit and proper to set aside the issue to the file of the CIT with a direction to re-issue notice to the legal heir and after giving the legal heir a fair opportunity of hearing, to decide the issue in accordance with law. In view of the same, assessee’s appeal is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.
More judgments on Section 263
- Gillette India Limited, Mumbai vs Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, JaipurITA 1316/JPR/2026[2018-19]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Neo Structo Construction P. Ltd., Ahmedabad vs The Pr. CIT- 3, AhmedabadITA 1216/AHD/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed16 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- Vimal Harilal Baldania, Gandhidham vs The ITO Ward 2, GandhidhamITA 770/RJT/2025[2017-18]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2017-18
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1493/KOL/2026[2015-2016]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2015-2016
- J.D. Marketing, Kolkata vs ITO, Ward 37(1), KolkataITA 1492/KOL/2026[2013-2014]Status: Disposed15 Oct 2026AY 2013-2014
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Dinesh Dash vs. State Of OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Ishwar Chandra Barik, Keonjhar vs. Commissioner(Appeal), GST, Central Excise And Customs, BhubaneswarOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Surveillance System, Sambalpur vs. Commissioner Of CT And GST Odisha , CT And GST Commissionerate , Cuttack OdishaOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S.Himansu Palei vs. Assistant Commissioner Central GST CBIC Keonjhar Division, KeonjharOrissa · 3 Nov 2026
- M/S. Access Worldwide Cargo vs. The Commissioner Of CustomsKarnataka · 3 Nov 2026