Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘A’ BENCH, CHENNAI
Before: SHRI MAHAVIR SINGHAND SHRI MANOJ KUMAR AGGARWAL
आयकरअपीलसं./ITA Nos.: 1723 & 1724/CHNY/2019 िनधा�रण वष�/Assessment Years: 2011-12 & 2013-14 Late Shri Mohamed Mustafa, The Income Tax Officer, (Rep. by legal heir Smt. Soudha vs. Non-Corporate Ward – 7(4), Mustafa), Chennai – 34. AE-5, Old No.103, 10th Main Road, Anna Nagar West, Chennai – 600 040. PAN: ALIPM 6526E (अपीलाथ�/Appellant) (��यथ�/Respondent) अपीलाथ� क� ओर से/Appellant by : Shri N. Arjun Raj, CA for Shri S. Sridhar, Advocate ��यथ� क� ओर से/Respondent by : Shri AR.V.Sreenivasan, Addl.CIT सुनवाई क� तार�ख/Date of Hearing : 11.10.2022 घोषणा क� तार�ख/Date of Pronouncement : 11.10.2022 आदेश /O R D E R PER MAHAVIR SINGH, VICE PRESIDENT:
These appeals by the assessee are arising out of the different orders of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-7, Chennai in & 159/CIT(A)-7/2016-17 both dated 27.06.2018. The assessments were framed by the Income Tax Officer, Non-Corporate Ward-7(4), Chennai for the assessment years 2011-12 & 2013-14
At the outset, it is noticed that these appeals filed by assessee are barred by limitation by 234 days and assessee has filed condonation petition stating that the order of CIT(A) dated 27.06.2018 was received by him on 10.08.2018 and appeal was filed belatedly on 31.05.2019 by 234 days. For this, he stated the reasons by affidavit, which the ld.counsel read out and the same reads as under:- “I state that the appellate order was received by me on 10.08.2018 and further I state that the consequence of the said appellate order was not understood by me, as I was bed ridden due to cancer treatment leading to two surgeries, one in 2015 and another in 2018, as well as associated ailments.
I state that the appellate order received was handed over to my Chartered Accountant for further action in the month of September 2018, but, because of my poor health condition, I could not meet my Chartered Accountant and discuss the case and file a second appeal before the Jurisdictional Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal.”
When these facts were confronted to ld.Senior DR and was told that these orders of CIT(A) was passed on a dead person, he left the matter on Bench.
3 & 1724/Chny/2019 2.1 Having heard rival contentions and going through the reasons stated and one more reason that the orders of CIT(A) are passed on dead person, we find the cause as reasonable and hence condoned the delay.
At the outset, the ld.counsel for the assessee stated that the orders of CIT(A) are dated 27.06.2018 and assessee expired on 06.02.2017 as per death certificate issued by Revenue Department, Tamil Nadu Government. The ld.counsel stated that no order can be passed on a dead person and hence, the orders suffer illegality and hence, be quashed. On this, the ld.Senior DR, could not make any submissions.
After hearing both the sides and going through the orders of CIT(A) dated 27.06.2018 and the assessee expired on 06.02.2017 much before passing of the order, the orders passed by CIT(A) are illegal and invalid and deserves to be quashed. Hence, we quash the orders of CIT(A). But in any case, the assessments will survive. In such circumstances, we remit the matter back to the file of the CIT(A) to adjudicate the appeals after bringing legal heir on record because before us, the appeals were filed by assessee’s legal heir Smt. Soudha Mustafa. Hence, both the appeals of assessee are 4 & 1724/Chny/2019 allowed for statistical purposes and matter remanded back to the file of the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after bringing the legal heir on record.
In the result, the appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 11th October, 2022 at Chennai.