Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals were filed by the deceased assessee against the order of the CIT(A) which dismissed the appeals for delay in filing. The assessee contended that the delay was wrongly assumed by the CIT(A) and that orders were passed against a deceased person.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay of 5 and 8 days in filing the appeals, finding a violation of natural justice by the CIT(A) for not admitting the appeals on merits without proper inquiry. The CIT(A) was directed to decide the grounds of appeal on merits.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeals ex-parte on grounds of delay without proper verification, and whether the orders passed against a deceased assessee are bad in law.
Sections Cited
272A(1)(d), 144, 147, 250(6)
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 deceased assessee Hadhijath Amina against the order of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/NFAC, (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Delhi, both dated 04.07.2024 for the Assessment Year (hereinafter referred to as "AY”) 2018-19 against the confirmation of quantum assessment as well as & 241/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Hadhijath Amina :: 2 ::
penalty levied u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act”).
At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that there is a delay of ‘120’ days in filing of both the appeals and explained the reason for cause of delay. Having gone through the facts which led to the delay, we find that there was sufficient cause for the cause of delay and hence, we condone the delay of ‘120’ days and proceed to adjudicate the appeals on merits.
The Ld.AR of the assessee, Ms. Lekha, CA, has brought to our notice that the Ld.CIT(A) has dismissed both the appeals by not admitting the same [preferred by the assessee before him (NFAC)] on the ground that there was delay of five (5) days & eight (8) days in filing of appeals against the quantum assessment and penalty order respectively.
According to the Ld.AR, in fact there was no delay in filing of both the appeals because, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in assuming that the assessee has received assessment order u/s.144 r.w.s.147 of the Act on 02.03.2023, whereas the assessee received it only on 10.03.2023 and likewise, the penalty order was also received after ten (10) days and therefore, there was no delay of five (5) days & eight (8) days in filing of both the appeals as alleged by the Ld.CIT(A) whereas the appeals were filed within the time and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A)/NFAC ought not to have dismissed the & 241/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Hadhijath Amina appeals ex parte without going into the merits of the appeals. Therefore, she pleads that one more opportunity may be granted to the assessee.
And the Ld.AR also submitted that the AO/Ld.CIT(A) erred in passing the orders in the name of the deceased assessee, so she asserted that both orders were bad in law.
Per contra, the Ld.DR doesn’t want us to give one more innings to the assessee and brought to our notice that the assessee/Hadhijath Amina was alive when both the assessment order/ penalty order was passed on 02.03.2023 and 21.08.2023 respectively; and that she passed away only one month before the first appellate order was passed i.e. on 04.07.2024 [the Ld.AR of the assessee clarified that Hadhijath Amina had passed away on 05.06.2024]. Therefore, according to the Ld.DR, the assessee’s contentions that the AO passed the assessment order/penalty order against the deceased person is not correct and legal heirs of the assessee have to file the appeals and pursue it in accordance to law.
Having heard both the parties and after perusal of the records, we note that the Ld.CIT(A) passed an ex parte order without admitting the appeals against the assessment order dated 02.03.2023 for AY 2018-19 as well as the penalty order dated 21.08.2023 u/s.272A(1)(d) of the Act on the ground that both the appeals were delayed by five (5) days & eight (8) days respectively. In this regard, the Ld.AR brought to our notice that & 241/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Hadhijath Amina the assessee received assessment order and penalty order after a week’s time; therefore, respective appeals were filed well within ‘30’ days before the First Appellate Authority and therefore, the Ld.CIT(A) erred in assuming that appeals were filed belatedly. Be that as it may, we don’t countenance the action of the Ld.CIT(A) to have held the appeals filed by the assessee to be non-maintainable only on the ground that appeals were belatedly filed and that too by five & eight days. It should be borne in mind that “justice should not only be done, but it must be seem to be done”. In the instant case, even if the Ld.CIT(A) felt that there was delay in filing of the appeal, then he was not precluded from asking the assessee to file the reason for the delay which he has not done in this case. Therefore, there is per-se violation of natural justice and hence, the impugned action need to be interfered with and we do so, by setting aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) i.e. both the cases; and also we condone the delay of five (5) days & eight (8) days in filing of appeals against the assessment order as well as penalty order; and direct the Ld.CIT(A) to decide the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee on merits as mandated by sub-section (6) of section 250 of the Act after hearing the assessee. The Ld.AR of the assessee, Ms. Lekha, CA, has undertaken to pursue the appeals diligently by bringing legal heirs on board as per law and pursue the appeals. All the issues including the & 241/Chny/2025 (AY 2018-19) Hadhijath Amina legal issues are left open to be decided by the Ld.CIT(A) in accordance to law after hearing the assessee.
In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 26th day of May, 2025, in Chennai.