SRI. G.M. MURALIDHAR (HUF) BY MANAGER, DAKSHAYANI MURALIDHAR,BENGALURU vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD - 7(2)(4), BANGALORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 2425/BANG/2019Status: DisposedITAT Bangalore14 July 2021AY 2016-175 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the CIT(A) passed an order without following due process of law, as the legal heir was unaware of the transactions and was not given a proper opportunity to be heard. Therefore, the matter was remitted back to the AO for a de novo assessment.

What were the facts?

The Karta of the assessee HUF passed away, and his wife, the legal heir, was unaware of the HUF's financial transactions. The assessment order was passed ex-parte under Section 144. The legal heir's appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-appearance despite repeated notices.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal without granting a proper opportunity to the legal heir who was unaware of the deceased Karta's financial transactions.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE

Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI

For Appellant: Smt. Suman Lunkar, Advocate
For Respondent: Shri Priyadarshi Mishra, Addl. CIT (DR)
Hearing: 25.06.2021Pronounced: 14.07.2021

O R D E R PER BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER: Present appeal has been filed by assessee against order dated 31/10/2019 passed by the Ld.CIT(A)-7, Bangalore for assessment year 2016-17. 2. The Ld.AR submitted that, the Karta of assessee deceased on 09/11/2017, leaving his wife as legal heir, who was unaware of the financial transactions of the HUF. He submitted that the assessment order was passed under section 144 of the Act, as none appeared on behalf of assessee. On receipt of the assessment order, the legal heir of the Karta, being his wife filed appeal before the Ld.CIT(A). 2.1 Before the Ld.CIT(A), the legal heir of assessee failed to appear even after repeated notices being issued. The Ld.CIT(A) while dismissing the appeal noted that no written submission was filed before the Ld.AO and the notices issued by the Ld.AO was ignored by the assessee.

3.

Aggrieved by the order of Ld.CIT(A), assessee is in appeal before us now. 3.1 At the outset, the Ld.AR submitted that, the legal heir of assessee is absolutely unaware about the activities that was carried out by Karta of assessee. He submitted that assessee may be granted one more opportunity wherein the legal heir could file all requisite details in order to substantiate the claim of assessee.

4.

On the contrary the Ld. DR supported the orders passed by authorities below.

5.

We have perused submissions advanced by both sides in light of records placed before us. 5.1 We note that during the assessment proceedings the Karta of assessee demised, and wife being the legal hair could not step into the shoes of her husband. Subsequently, as the procedures under the Act was made aware to the wife and she filed appeal against the assessment order before Ld.CIT(A) on behalf of her deceased husband. It cannot be presumed that she would have known and explained the transactions that were under question by the Ld. AO. Ld. CIT(A) without giving proper opportunity and without hearing the assessee dismissed the appeal by confirming the assessment order so passed. Such orders in our opinion cannot be upheld as Ld. CIT(A) has passed an order without following due process of law. We therefore remit this issue back to the Ld. AO to carry out denovo of assessment. Assessee being represented by the wife of deceased Karta is directed to appear and file all requisite details as called for. The Ld.AO shall then carry out necessary verification and consider the claim in accordance with law. Needless to say that proper opportunity of being heard must be granted to assessee in accordance with law. Accordingly the grounds raised by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. In the result appeal filed by assessee stands allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in open court on 14th July, 2021 Sd/- Sd/- (Chandra Poojari) (Beena Pillai) Accountant Member Judicial Member Bangalore, Dated 14th July, 2021.

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →