Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed belatedly by 237 days by the legal heir of the deceased assessee. The assessee passed away during the appellate proceedings before the Ld.CIT(A), and the Ld.CIT(A) passed the impugned orders without hearing the assessee or their legal heir.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay, holding that there was a violation of natural justice as the orders were passed after the assessee's death and without affording an opportunity of hearing to the legal heir. The impugned orders were set aside.
Key Issues
Whether the Ld.CIT(A) order passed after the assessee's death without hearing the legal heir is valid and whether the delay in filing the appeal should be condoned.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI
Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH
आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: These are appeals preferred by the legal heir of assessee [Shri K.
Velusamy] against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai-18, both dated 30.09.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2012-13 & 2013-14.
& 2056/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Bharat Kumar Velusamy :: 2 ::
At the outset, it is noted that the appeals have been filed belatedly by ‘237’ days. The legal heir representing the late assessee pleads for condoning the delay on the ground that he was not aware of the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.09.2024 since his father Shri K. Velusamy (assessee) while he was alive didn’t disclose about the assessment proceedings/appellate proceedings going on against him. And while the First Appellate proceedings was going on, the assessee passed away on 13.06.2023 (copy of death certificate filed before us); and thus, asserted before us that the legal heir was totally in the dark about the existence of the impugned order. Considering the aforesaid facts, which couldn’t be controverted, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the grounds of appeal raised by the legal heir of the assessee against the action of the Ld.CIT(A).
3. At the outset, Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the AO had passed the assessment order on 16.12.2019 for AY 2012-13 and had passed the assessment order for AY 2013-14 on 17.12.2019 u/s.143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”) and the assessee had filed the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A)- 18; and when the appellate proceedings were going on, the assessee passed away on 13.06.2023 [which fact is corroborated by the Death Certificate issued by the Department of the Revenue Administrative, Government of Tamil Nadu]. Therefore, the Ld.AR brought to our notice & 2056/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Bharat Kumar Velusamy that the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.09.2024 was without hearing the assessee. The said assertion made by the Ld.AR needs to be believed, since he passed away way back on 13.06.2023, whereas the impugned order was passed on 30.09.2024. In such a scenario, since there is a violation of natural justice, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file with a direction to hear the legal heir and pass speaking order on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as mandated in sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. The legal-heir of assessee is directed to file relevant documents to substantiate the claim made in the grounds of appeal, without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the legal heir/assessee.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.