BHAGYALAKSHMI PREMSAGAR RAO LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI PREMSAGAR RAO ,MUMBAI vs. ITO WARD 24(3(1), MUMBAI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 4862/MUM/2025Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai22 September 2025AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY (Judicial Member), SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The tribunal acknowledged the death of the assessee and considered the non-compliance as bonafide, genuine, and unintentional. The court decided to remand the case back to the AO for fresh decision.

What were the facts?

The assessee preferred an appeal against an order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC). The assessee died during the pendency of the appeal, leading to non-compliance with notices in the first appellate proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the non-compliance due to the assessee's death should lead to a remand for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 254

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI BENCH “B”, MUMBAI

Before: SHRI NARENDER KUMAR CHOUDHRY & SHRI PRABHASH SHANKAR

For Respondent: Shri Leyaquat Ali Aafaqui, Ld. Sr. A.R
Hearing: 22.09.2025Pronounced: 22.09.2025

Per : Narender Kumar Choudhry, Judicial Member:

This appeal has been preferred by the Assessee against the order dated 03.06.2025, impugned herein, passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC)/Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (in short Ld. Commissioner) u/s 250 r.w.s 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short ‘the Act’) for the A.Y. 2012-13.

Considering the factum qua death of Assessee on dated 04th 2. may 2021, which resulted into non-compliance to the notices issued by Ld. Commissioner in 1st appellate proceedings, as bonafide, genuine and unintentional, this Court is inclined to remand this case Ms. Bhagyalakshmi Premsagar Rao to the file of the AO being an exceptional case, though refuted by the Ld. DR, for decision afresh with a direction to the Legal heir {now being the Appellant} to comply with the notices to be issued and file the submissions and documents as would be essentially required and in case of default, the appellant would not be entitled for leniency.

3.

Thus, the case is accordingly remanded to the file of AO for decision afresh in the aforesaid terms.

Order pronounced in the open court on 22.09.2025.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →