Loading judgment…
Facts
The legal representative of the deceased assessee, Madan Lal Bapna, filed two appeals against the CIT(A)'s orders for Assessment Year 2011-12. The CIT(A) had dismissed the appeals (against an assessment order u/s 147/144 and a penalty order u/s 271(1)(c)) due to being time-barred, as the legal representative claimed unawareness of original notices and the assessee passed away after filing the appeals.
Held
The Tribunal set aside the CIT(A)'s orders and remanded the quantum proceedings to the Assessing Officer for a fresh decision after providing a reasonable opportunity of being heard. The penalty order was also set aside, with the Assessing Officer at liberty to proceed regarding penalty after the conclusion of the quantum proceedings.
Key Issues
1. Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing appeals as time-barred, given the legal representative's claims of lack of knowledge of original proceedings and the assessee's demise during the process. 2. Whether assessment and penalty orders, issued in the name of a deceased assessee without proper notice to the legal representative, should be set aside and remanded.
Sections Cited
250, 147, 144, 148, 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
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.
& 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.
Arguments heard. File perused.
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.
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.
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.