PRABHA TRIPATHI L/R OF LATE RAGHAV RAM TRIPATHI,BHOPAL vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER 2(1), BHOPAL

PDF · subscribers
ITA 37/IND/2025Status: DisposedITAT Indore26 June 2025AY 2012-138 pages
AI SummaryRemanded

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delays in filing the appeals for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13. The Tribunal noted the peculiar fact that the assessee had deceased during the pendency of the first appeals before the CIT(A), and the CIT(A), being unaware of this fact, passed the impugned orders without impleading the Legal Representatives. Furthermore, the Tribunal observed that the CIT(A) had dismissed the first appeals for non-prosecution without conducting a meritorious adjudication as required by Section 250(6) of the Act. Considering these circumstances, the Tribunal admitted the appeals. The Tribunal then remanded the cases back to the file of the CIT(A) for adjudication afresh in accordance with Section 250(6) after taking the legal representatives on record. The Tribunal expressly left undecided the merits of the original assessment orders.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Raghav Ram Tripathi, passed away on April 9, 2021, during the pendency of his first appeals before the CIT(A). His wife, Smt. Prabha Tripathi, acting as the Legal Representative (L/R), filed these appeals before the ITAT against the orders of the CIT(A) dated May 18, 2023, and July 14, 2023. These orders arose from assessment orders passed by the AO for Assessment Years (AY) 2011-12 and 2012-13. The L/R contended that the CIT(A) passed the orders in the name of the deceased assessee without impleading her. The appeals before the ITAT were filed with significant delays of 527 and 466 days, respectively. The L/R explained the delay by stating she was unaware of the pending appeals, the CIT(A)'s order was not received, and she only became aware when her son's bank account was attached for non-payment of demand.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the delay in filing the present appeals before the ITAT, for AYs 2011-12 and 2012-13, is to be condoned, turning on the principle of sufficient cause under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1963, as applied to ITAT proceedings. Assessee's contentions: The L/R argued that the delay was caused by her lack of awareness of the pending appeals and the CIT(A)'s ex-parte orders, due to the death of the original assessee and the subsequent deactivation of his communication channels. She relied on the judgment in Collector, Land Acquisition Vs Mst. Katiji and others (1987 AIR 1353, 1987 2 SCC 387 (SC)) for liberal interpretation of condonation of delay. She also contended that the CIT(A)'s orders were not in accordance with Section 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961, as they lacked proper reasoning. Revenue's contentions: The Ld. DR for the revenue fairly agreed to the submissions and prayer of the Ld. AR.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 143(3),Section 147,Section 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

For Appellant: Shri Gagan Tiwari, AR
For Respondent: Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR
Hearing: 25.06.2025Pronounced: 26.06.2025

आदेश/ O R D E R

Per B.M. Biyani, A.M.:

1.

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).

2.

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.

3.

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 on stamp papers. The affidavit filed in of AY 2011-12 is scanned and re-produced below for an immediate reference and similar 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

4.

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

5.

Ld. DR for revenue fairly agreed to the submissions and prayer of Ld. AR.

6.

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.

7.

Resultantly, this appeal is allowed for statistical purpose.

Order pronounced in open court on 26/06/2025

More judgments on Section 147

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

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →