Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal against the CIT(A)'s order dismissing their appeal for delay was preferred by the legal heir. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal due to a 228-day delay without condoning it, and the assessment order was passed against the deceased assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 228 days by accepting the assessee's explanation. The Tribunal also noted that the CIT(A) order was passed against the deceased, not the legal heir, and set aside the CIT(A)'s order.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is to be condoned and whether the CIT(A) order passed against a deceased assessee is sustainable.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 143(3)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “H (SMC
Appearance For the Appellant/Assessee : None For the Respondent/Department : Shri Pravin Salunkhe Date Conclusion of hearing : 16.07.2025 Pronouncement of order : 22.07.2025 O R D E R [ Per Rahul Chaudhary, Judicial Member:
1. 1. The present appeal preferred by the Assessee is directed against the order, dated 22/03/2025, passed by the Additional/Joint Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Chennai [hereinafter referred to as ‘the CIT(A)’] under Section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’] whereby the Ld. CIT(A) had dismissed the appeal against the Assessment Order, dated 30/06/2016, passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act for the Assessment Year 2009-2010.
2. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, Assessment Year 2009-2010 the ld. CIT(A) has not condoned the delay in filing of appeal of 228 days. Requesting your honor, to condone the delay in filing of appeal.
2. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the ld. AO has erred in making additions 12.50% of Hawala Parties which result in addition of Rs.2,58,822/-. Requesting your Honor, the said addition may please be deleted.
3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the assessment order passed by the ld. AO is in violation of the principles of natural justice as no opportunity to cross examine the said parties was given inspite of specific request made by the Appellant. The said order may please be treated as Null and Viod.
4. All the grounds of appeal are without prejudice to each other.”
When the appeal was taken up for hearing none was present on behalf of the Assessee. We have heard Learned Departmental Representative.
On perusal of the Assessment Order, dated 30/06/2016 passed under Section 147 read with Section 143(3) of the Act we find that the assessment was framed in the name of the legal heir of the Assessee. In appeal preferred before the CIT(A) against the said Assessment Order, the CIT(A) dismissed the appeal vide order, dated 22/03/2025, observing that the Assessee had failed to provide reasons for delay of 228 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Being aggrieved, the Assessee has preferred the present appeal before the Tribunal on the grounds reproduced at Paragraph 2 above.
The Assessee has placed on record affidavit sworn on 24/06/2025 explaining that the delay in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) was on account of time taken for obtaining legal heir certificate and complying with the other formalities of filing appeal before the Learned CIT(A). In view of the explanation offered by the Assessee, we hold that the Assessee was prevented by sufficient cause for 2 Assessment Year 2009-2010 filing the appeal before the CIT(A). Accordingly, the delay of 228 days in filing the appeal before the CIT(A) is condoned. We further note that the Learned CIT(A) has passed the impugned order in the name of decease assessee (and not the legal heir) and for that reason also the impugned order passed by the CIT(A) cannot be sustained. Thus, we set aside the Order, dated 22/03/2025, passed by the Learned CIT(A) with the directions to adjudicate the grounds raised by the Assessee on merits as per law after granting Assessee as reasonable opportunity of being hear. In terms of the aforesaid the Ground No.1 raised by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose while Ground No.2 and 3 raised by the Assessee are dismissed as having been rendered infructuous.
In result the appeal preferred by the Assessee is allowed for statistical purpose.