MADAN LAL BAPNA,GURGAON vs. ITO WARD 3(5), JAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 730/JPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur31 July 2025AY 2011-126 pages
AI SummaryPartly Allowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the delay in filing the appeals deserved to be condoned and remanded the matters to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the legal representative of the assessee, Madan Lal Bapna, challenging orders that dismissed their appeals for delay. The assessee's father and legal representative passed away during the pendency of the proceedings.

What were the issues?

Whether the delay in filing appeals by the legal representative of a deceased assessee should be condoned and the matter remanded for fresh adjudication.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 250,Section 147,Section 144,Section 148,Section 271(1)(c)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, JAIPUR BENCHES,”SMC” JAIPUR

Before: SHRI RATHOD KAMLESH JAYANTBHAI, AM & SHRI NARINDER KUMAR, JM vk;dj vihy la-@ITA No. 730 & 731/JPR/2025

Hearing: 31/07/2025Pronounced: 31/07/2025

ORDER Per: Narinder Kumar, Judicial Member This common order is to dispose of both the above captioned appeals, as the same arise out of the same facts, and have been simultaneously argued.

1.

& 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon The two appeals came to be filed, after verification and signing of Forms- 36 by Vinod Kumar Bapna, who claims to be legal representative of assessee Madan Lal Bapna. 2.

.- Present appeal has been filed by the appellant challenging order dated 17.03.2025, passed by Learned CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), relating to the assessment year 2011-12, whereby appeal filed by the assessee on 10.12.2019, challenging assessment order dated 12.11.2018, passed u/s 147 read with section 144 of the Act., came to be dismissed, while observing that the appellant had failed to justify the delay in filing thereof.

3.

Arguments heard. File perused.

4.

Ld. AR for the appellant, legal representative of Madan Lal Bapna, assessee has submitted that the appellant was not aware of the issuance of notice u/s 148 of the Act, and that to the best on his acknowledge, the legal representative was not aware of service of any such notice on his father during his life time. Ld. AR for the appellant has further submitted that the appellant- legal representative came to know of the assessment order, for the first & 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon time, during assessment proceedings for the assessment year 2012-13 when it was brought to his notice that there was a demand outstanding. Ld. AR has further submitted that it was thereupon that appellant applied for certified copy of the assessment order and other papers. Accordingly, Ld. AR for the appellant has submitted that the delay in filing of the appeal deserved to be condoned, and urged that the matter may be remanded to the Assessing Officer for decision afresh. way of present appeal, the appellant- legal representative of the assessee Madan Lal Bapna has challenged order dated 17.03.2025, whereby Learned CIT(A) dismissed the appeal filed by his father, thereby sustaining the penalty order passed u/s 271(1)(c) of the Act, by observing that the said appeal was also barred by limitation.

6.

Regarding this second mentioned appeal, Ld. AR for the appellant has put forth the very submissions already noticed above and urged that the impugned orders may be set aside. Discussion 7. As noticed above, assessment order is dated 12.11.2018, and the penalty order is dated 31.05.2019.

& 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon 8. Record reveals that there was non compliance by the assessee by not participating in the quantum proceedings and the proceedings pertaining to penalty. Thereafter, the assessee presented two separate appeals before Learned CIT(A) on 10.12.2019. Since those appeals were reportedly filed beyond prescribed period of limitation, deficiency note/letter was issued by the said office to the appellant. It is available from the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) that on 13.03.2025 the letter was submitted accompanied by an affidavit pleading therein that the appellant had shifted from Jaipur to Gurgaon, and as such no notice regarding ongoing proceedings was served upon him.

9.

From the assessment order, it does not transpire if the factum of death of the assessee was brought to the notice of the office of Learned CIT(A). Even the impugned orders have been issued in the name of the assessee, and not in the name of any legal representative . As per affidavit dated 26.07.2025 submitted by the appellant legal of the assessee is further left this world on 06.05.2021. This goes to so that after the two appeals were filed by the appellant before Learned CIT(A) on 10.12.2019, the assessee could not participate in the proceedings because of his death.

& 731/JPR/2025 Madan Lal Bapna, Gurgaon 10. In the given situation, Ld. DR for the department has no objection to setting aside of the impugned orders passed by Learned CIT(A) and remand of the matter pertaining to the quantum proceedings, to the Assessing Officer for decision fresh, after providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

More judgments on Section 147

All 49,210 judgments and leading authorities on Section 147 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →