Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee's appeal was filed late due to the death of the assessee and lack of awareness by the legal heir regarding the appeal process. The CIT(A) had passed an ex-parte order against the deceased assessee.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the delay in filing the appeal, noting sufficient cause. The Tribunal directed the CIT(A) to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to the legal heir, considering the written submissions.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing the appeal can be condoned due to the death of the assessee and lack of awareness of the legal heir, and whether the CIT(A) erred in passing an ex-parte order.
Sections Cited
49, 250, 271(1)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR
Before: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, JM & SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM vk;djvihy la-@ITA No. 892/JPR/2025
fu/kZkj.ko"kZ@Assessment Year : 2010-11 Late Shri Shakti Singh cuke The ITO Vs. Thru: L/h Smt. Vidhya Rathore Ward -3 (2) Flat No. 305, D-239, Pratap Enclave, Jaipur Bihari Marg, Bani Park, Jaipur – 302 016 LFkk;hys[kk la-@thvkbZvkj la-@PAN/GIR No.: ANWPS 8453 J vihykFkhZ@Appellant izR;FkhZ@Respondent fu/kZkfjrh dh vksjls@Assesseeby : Shri Dileep Shivpuri, Advocate Shri Utkarsh Shara, Advocate jktLo dh vksjls@Revenue by: Shri Gautam Singh Choudhary, Addl. CIT-DR lquokbZ dh rkjh[k@Date of Hearing : 08/10/2025 mn?kks"k.kk dh rkjh[k@Date of Pronouncement: 29/10/2025 vkns'k@ORDER PER: DR. S. SEETHALAKSHMI, J.M. This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of learned Commissioner of Income Tax, National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi[ for short CIT(A)] dated 03.03.2025 for the assessment year 2010-11 raising therein following grounds of appeal. ‘’1. The ld.CIT(A) grossly erred in passing an order contrary to facts and law.
2. The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in passing an order in name of dead person.
LATE SHRI SHAKTI SINGH THRU: L/H SMT. VIDHYA RATHORE 3. The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in misinterpreting Section 49 of the Income Tax Act, 1961. 4. The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred on facts and in law in not considering the facts that the assets received in inheritance was land while the capital gains had to be charged on sale of flat. 5. The ld. CIT(A) grossly erred in not taking in account the value of construction of the impugned flat while computing the capital gains.
2.1 At the outset of hearing of the appeal, the Bench noticed that there is delay of 5 days in filing the appeal by the assessee before the Bench for which the assessee has filed an application for condonation of delay giving therein mainly following reasoning. ‘’1. That the impugned order of CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi for A.Y. 2010-11 was passed on03-03-2025. Shri Shakti Singh, the assessee expired on 13-06-2024. A copy of his death certificate was furnished to the Assessing Officer who passed the assessment order dated 12-12-2017 in the name of late assessee through L/H Smt. Vidya Rathore.
That it is a fact that the Appellant’s L/H, a housewife, was totally unaware that an order u/s 250 has been passed by the CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi on 03-03-2025. She did not have access to the e-mail ID of her late husband. She also did not have knowledge of the income tax matters of her late husband. It was only when the order giving appeal effect was received by her that she realized that some appellate order has been passed. Since, it was a faceless appeal, all notices of hearing and LATE SHRI SHAKTI SINGH THRU: L/H SMT. VIDHYA RATHORE the appellate order was being uploaded on the official portal.
That as state above, it was only when the order giving appeal effect dated 25-04-2025 was received by her that she came to know about the existence of the appellate order. She then lost no time in filing an appeal before the Hon’ble ITAT. An affidavit of the application to this effect is enclosed as Annexure A to this application.’’ 2.2 On the other hand, the ld.DR did not object to the submissions of the assessee as to condonation of delay and submitted that the Court may decide the issue as deemed fit and proper in the case. 2.3 After hearing both the parties and perusing the materials available on record and also taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Bench feels that the assessee is prevented by sufficient cause in late filing the appeal before ITAT. Hence, in view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the delay so made in filing the appeal by the assessee is condoned. 3.1 Apropos grounds of appeal
of the assessee, it is noticed that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order in the case of the assessee Shri Shakti Singh and thus dismissed the appeal by observing as under:- ‘’The assessee has declared LTCG for Rs.1,38,360/- whereas the actual LTCG comes to Rs.26,85,444/- as computed in para 6 in the assessment order. Accordingly, an addition of Rs.25,47,084/- (26,85,444 minus 1,38,360) is made on this LATE SHRI SHAKTI SINGH THRU: L/H SMT. VIDHYA RATHORE account, penalty proceedings u/s 271(1)© have been rightly initiated by the AO. The assessment of Long Term Capital Gains at Rs.25,47,084/- is confirmed.
3. The appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed.
3.2 During the course of hearing, the main grievance of the assessee is that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an order in the name of dead person late Shri Shakti Singh whereas the Assessing Officer has passed an order dated 12-12-2017 in the name of Late Shri Shakti Singh Through L/H Smt. Vidhya Rathore. It is further submitted that the land was received by the assessee through inheritance and thus the capital gain had to be charged on sale of flat and also submitted that ld. CIT(A) had not taken into account the value of construction of the impugned flat while computing the capitals gain. To support the contentions of the L/H Smt. Vidya Rathore, the ld. AR of the assessee has filed the following documents. S.N. Particulars Page No.
Written submission 1 to 9 2. Documents :- Annexure A: Copy of order dated 25-07-2024 in 10-21 matter of late BanwariLal Soothwal through L/h vs ITO 1(5), Jaipur 3.3 On the other hand, the ld. DR supported the order of the ld.CIT(A).
LATE SHRI SHAKTI SINGH THRU: L/H SMT. VIDHYA RATHORE 3.4 We have heard both the parties and perused the materials available on record. From the records, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) has passed an ex-parte order and thus dismissed the appeal of the assessee without providing adequate opportunity of being heard to the assessee. The Bench feels that the grievance as raised by the assessee in appeal before ITAT needs to be re-decided by the ld. CIT(A) while taking into consideration the written submission raised before this Bench. Hence, in this view of the matter, the Bench directs the ld. CIT(A) to pass an afresh order in the name of L/h Smt. Vidya Rathore W/o of late Shri Shakti Singh, but by providing one more opportunity of being heard to the legal heir. The L/H of the assessee is directed to produce all the relevant documents/ written submission before the ld. CIT(A) to settle the dispute in question. However, the assessee will not seek any adjournment on frivolous ground and remain cooperative during the course of proceedings. Thus the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
3.5 Before parting, we may make it clear that our decision to restore the matter back to the file of the ld. CIT(A) shall in no way be construed as having any reflection or expression on the merits of the dispute, which shall be adjudicated by ld. CIT(A) independently in accordance with law.
LATE SHRI SHAKTI SINGH THRU: L/H SMT. VIDHYA RATHORE 4.0 In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes Order pronounced in the open court on 29 /10/2025.