NAGARAJAN PERUMAL (DECEASED) REP.BY L/H LAKSHMI PRABHU,SALEM vs. DCIT, CIRCLE-1(1), SALEM

PDF · subscribers
ITA 775/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai12 August 2025AY 2011-12Bench: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY (Judicial Member), SHRI JAGADISH (Accountant Member)1 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that an order passed ex-parte in the name of a deceased person is unsustainable in law. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the case was remanded to pass a fresh order after bringing the legal heir on record and providing an opportunity of being heard.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2011-12 arose from an order passed by the CIT(A). The assessment was completed by the AO on 25.03.2014. The assessee expired on 04.10.2020, after which the CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 29.01.2025 in the name of the deceased person without affording sufficient opportunity.

What were the issues?

Whether an ex-parte order passed by the CIT(A) in the name of a deceased assessee without affording sufficient opportunity is valid.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: CHENNAI

Before: SHRI ABY T. VARKEY & SHRI JAGADISH

Hearing: 19.06.2025Pronounced: 12.08.2025

आदेश / O R D E R

PER JAGADISH, A.M : Aforesaid appeal filed by the assessee for Assessment Year (AY) 2011-12 arises out of the order of Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (NFAC), Delhi [hereinafter “CIT(A)”] dated 29.01.2024 in the matter of assessment framed by the Assessing Officer [AO] u/s. 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter “the Act”) on 25.03.2014.

2.

The assessee has taken a ground that the Ld. CIT(A) has passed the order in the name of deceased person and without affording sufficient opportunity therefore, the order may be quashed.

3.

The assessment in this case was completed by ACIT-1, Circle- I(2), Salem on 25.03.2014, making an addition of Rs. 82,80,340/- against the returned income of Rs. 45,40,047/-. The assessee filled appeal before Ld. CIT(A) and subsequently expired on 04.10.2020.

1.

The Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 29.01.2025 in the name of the deceased person, without affording sufficient opportunity.

4.

The Ld. Authorized Representative (A.R) of the assessee has contended that the order of Ld CIT(A) is invalid as it has been passed in the name of deceased person .

5.

On the other hand, the Ld. Departmental Representative (DR), has relied on the orders of lower authorities.

6.

We have heard the rival submissions, and perused the materials available on record. It is undisputed fact that the assessee expired on 04.10.2020 and that the Ld. CIT(A) passed an ex-parte order on 29.01.2025 in the name of the deceased person. As the impugned order has been passed ex-parte in the name of a deceased person, the same is unsustainable in law. We accordingly set aside the order of the Ld. CIT(A) and direct him to pass a fresh order after bringing the legal heir on record and after affording due opportunity of being heard to the parties concerned. In view of the above, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes only.

7.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.

Order pronounced on 12th day of August, 2025 at Chennai.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →