AMIT SAXENA ( LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE FROM ESTATE OF SUSHIL SAXENA),NEW DELHI vs. DCIT, CIRCLE- 22(2), NEW DELHI

This appeal is filed by the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax [Appeals-XXV], New Delhi dated 27.03.2019 pertaining to assessment year 2013-14 on the following grounds:-

1. That Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had erred in law and on facts in dismissing the appeal filed by legal heir on account of reduced deduction under Section BOIC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances and plain reading of Section 80IC of the Income Tax Act, 1961 the Appellant should have been permitted to claim full deduction under Section 8OIC in respect of the income earned from the eligible unit.

2. That the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in law and on facts is coming to the conclusion that the Appellant chose not to press the appeal despite several opportunities culled out in the chart of fixation dates without appreciating that the Appellant had made all attempts and taken all steps to substitutes the name of Sh. Amit Saxena as legal heir and failed because of technical reasons.

3. That the Appellant had full filled all condition of filing of appeal through the legal heir Smt. Lata Saxena but she also died on 31.03.2017 leaving behind Sh.Amit Saxena as legal heir. The Appellant Sh.Amit Saxena made all attempts to file the appeal electronically by substituting his name and Permanent Account No. to full filled the legal requirement! procedural requirement. nd the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) instead of appreciating that appellate proceeding itself could not be legally carry on without the substitute name of Sh.Amit Saxena and appeal had to be filled electronically once again as per the legal procedural requirement of CBDT.

4. That the Appellant had never got opportunity to represent the case and order passed is without providing adequate and reasonable opportunities. The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has neither consider representation dated 04.03.2016 and 18.12.2017 with other information placed on record in file of office of the CIT (A) apart from the grounds of appeal taken in the appeal filed manually on 1B.04.2016.

5. That the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) is bad in law and on facts of the case. The Appellant craves permission to add, amen and alter any of the ground before or on the date of hearing.

2. At the time of hearing, ld. Counsel for the assessee draw my attention towards the impugned order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) and stated that Ld. CIT(A) has decided the issues in dispute against the assessee, without serving the notice upon the assessee. He further stated that Sh. Sunil Saxena, the assessee has died during the proceedings and his wife Smt. Lata Saxena become legal heir before the Ld. CIT(A). But Mrs. Lata Saxena, the legal heir of the assessee has also died during the proceedings and their Son Sh. Amit Saxena, has become Legal Representative of the assessee and filed the present appeal before the Tribunal. He further draw my attention towards the order dated 29.11.2019 passed by the ITAT, SMC Bench, New Delhi in (AY 2010-11) & 06 Others Appeals by filing the copy thereof and stated that Ld. Counsel for the assessee has brought to the notice of the Bench that Assessee has expired and appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) was filed by the legal heir Smt. Lata Saxena, the wife of the assessee. However, she also expired during the appellate proceedings. The Ld. AR of the assessee also pointed out that an Application was filed before the Ld. CIT(A) to bring on record Sh. Amit Saxena, the son of the assessee as Legal Representative of the assessee. In view of above, he submitted that Tribunal should decide the issues in dispute after hearing both the parties, but the Tribunal vide order dated 29.11.2019 remitted the appeal back the issues in dispute to Ld. CIT(A) with the directions to decide the issues in dispute after taking on record the legal heir and after allowing reasonable opportunity of hearing to the assessee. Therefore, he requested