Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeals relate to Assessment Years 2011-12 & 2012-13, filed by Prabha Tripathi as Legal Representative (L/R) of the deceased assessee, Raghav Ram Tripathi. The assessee died during the pendency of the first-appeals before the CIT(A), who subsequently dismissed them ex-parte without knowledge of the death or bringing the L/R on record. The L/R faced significant delays in filing appeals before the ITAT, having only become aware of the proceedings when her son's bank account was attached for demand recovery.
Held
The Tribunal condoned the substantial delay in filing the appeals, citing sufficient cause due to the unique circumstances of the assessee's death and the L/R's lack of awareness. It held that the CIT(A) orders were invalid as they were passed against a deceased assessee without the L/R on record and without meritorious adjudication as required by Section 250(6). Consequently, the cases were remanded back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after properly bringing the Legal Representative on record.
Key Issues
Whether the delay in filing appeals by the Legal Representative should be condoned due to the assessee's demise during the first-appeal proceedings and lack of communication. Whether the CIT(A) orders passed against a deceased assessee without bringing the Legal Representative on record and without a meritorious adjudication are valid.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 250(6)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
Before: SHRI B.M. BIYANI & SHRI PARESH M. JOSHI
आदेश/ O R D E R
Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:
Feeling aggrieved by two separate orders of first-appeal for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2011-12 & 2012-13 dated 18.05.2023 & 14.07.2023 passed by learned Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals)-NFAC, Delhi [“CIT(A)”] which in turn arises out of respective assessment-orders dated 27.11.2018 & 06.12.2019 passed by learned ITO-2(4)/2(1), Bhopal [“AO”] u/s 143(3) r.w.s.
Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi & 37/Ind/2025, AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13 147 of Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], the assessee has filed these appeals on the grounds mentioned in Appeal Memo (Form No. 36).
Ld. AR at the outset submitted that the assessee in these cases was “Raghav Ram Tripathi” who had deceased on 09.04.2021. Copy of death certificate is placed on record. Therefore, wife of assessee “Smt. Prabha Tripathi” has signed and verified Form No. 36 and pursuing these appeals as “Legal Representative [L/R]”. Ld. AR pointed a crucial fact that the assessee had died during pendency of first-appeal itself and there was no information to CIT(A) qua death of assessee, hence the CIT(A) has passed order in the name of deceased assessee without taking on record the L/R.
The Registry has informed that these appeals are delayed by 527 days and 466 days respectively and therefore time-barred. Ld. AR submitted that the L/R has filed applications for condonation of delays with her affidavits scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference and similar affidavit has been filed for of AY 2012-13 except change of certain dates:
Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi & 37/Ind/2025, AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13
Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi & 37/Ind/2025, AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13
Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi & 37/Ind/2025, AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13
Referring to contents of above affidavit, particularly Para No. 4 and 6(b) to 6(f), Ld. AR explained the averments made therein by L/R. He narrated that the email id: rrtripathibhopal@gmail.com and phone number 9826489252 belonging to deceased assessee were given in Form No. 35 of first-appeal filed to CIT(A) but after death of assessee, the mobile number was de-activated and there was nobody in family to check the email a/c. The L/R has further averred that she was not aware of first-appeals filed and pending before CIT(A); that the impugned order passed by CIT(A) was not received by post; that it is when the bank a/c of son Mr. Atul Triphati was attached for non-payment of demand that the L/R filed an application dated 09.09.2024 to AO for stay over recovery of demand and even in that Page 5 of 8
Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi & 37/Ind/2025, AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13 application, copy at Page No. 5 of Paper-Book, the L/R requested the AO to grant stay “till disposal of first-appeal” which clearly shows that the L/R was not aware of the impugned ex-parte orders dated 18.05.2023 & 14.07.2023 having been passed by CIT(A). Ld. AR submitted that it is thereafter the assessee made further enquiries in the matter and lately came to know that the impugned orders had been passed ex-parte whereby the first-appeals had been dismissed for non-prosecution. Hence, there occurred impugned delays in filing appeals. Ld. AR very humbly submitted that there is no lethargy, negligence, mala fide intention or ulterior motive in making delay and the L/R does not stand to derive any benefit because of delay. He submitted that the sole reason of delay is as narrated which is a “sufficient cause”. Ld. AR went ahead to submit that the assessee’s cases are quite meritorious but the CIT(A) has dismissed appeals by passing a small para of just 2-3 sentences which is not in accordance with section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 which provides that “The order of the Commissioner (Appeals) disposing of the appeal shall be in writing and shall state the points for determination, the decision thereon and the reason for the decision.”.
Relying upon Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others 1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 (SC), Ld. AR prayed to condone the delays and remand these matters back to the file of CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with section 250(6) after giving necessary opportunity to L/R.
Prabha Tripathi L/R of Late Raghav Ram Tripathi & 37/Ind/2025, AYs. 2011-12 & 2012-13
Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed to the submissions and prayer of Ld. AR.
We have considered above submissions of both sides. We find that the issue of delays in filing these appeals has been appropriately addressed by Ld. AR/assessee and the Ld. DR does not have any objection against condonation of delay. Further, in present case, there is a peculiar fact that the assessee had deceased during pendency of first-appeals and the CIT(A) being unaware of the factum of death has passed impugned orders without taking Legal Representatives on record. Further, the CIT(A) has merely dismissed assessee’s first-appeals for non-prosecution without making a meritorious adjudication in terms of section 250(6) of the Act. Therefore, looking into entire conspectus of case, we condone the filing-delays and admit these appeals. Further, we remand these cases to the file of CIT(A) for an apt adjudication in terms of section 250(6) after taking legal representatives on record. Ordered accordingly.
Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.
Order pronounced in open court on 26/06/2025