DHIRAJLAL NATHUBHAI BHUT,RAJKOT vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD 1(1)(1), RAJKOT

PDF · subscribers
ITA 574/RJT/2025Status: DisposedITAT Rajkot31 October 2025AY 2007-084 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal condoned the delay of 230 days in filing the appeal, finding that there were mitigating circumstances. On the merits, the Tribunal held that notices of hearing during the penalty proceedings were served on the deceased assessee despite the legal representative having informed the department of the assessee's death. Therefore, notices served on a dead person are invalid in the eyes of law. The Tribunal noted that penalty notices should have been issued to the legal heirs, which the AO failed to do. Since the penalty was imposed on a dead person without intimating the legal heirs and without bringing them on record, the penalty was deemed to have no legal standing. The Tribunal cited the Supreme Court's view that a citizen cannot be taxed if the State cannot bring them within the letter of the law. Consequently, the penalty was deleted. The appeal was allowed.

What were the facts?

The assessee, Dhirajlal Nathubhai Bhut, filed an appeal against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [NFAC, Delhi] dated 25.11.2024. This order arose from a penalty levied by the Assessing Officer (AO) under Section 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961, dated 07.09.2015. The appeal was filed with a delay of 230 days, for which the assessee sought condonation. The assessee's counsel argued that the penalty was imposed on a deceased person, despite the legal representative having informed the department of the assessee's death. Notices were allegedly served on the deceased, and the order was framed against him. The revenue's counsel relied on the AO's findings.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation, and if so, whether the delay should be condoned? (Question of procedure turning on Section 253 of the Act). Assessee's Contention: The assessee sought condonation of the 230-day delay, citing mitigating circumstances. The learned counsel urged for a benign view. Revenue's Contention: The learned DR opposed the prayer for condonation of delay. 2. Whether the penalty levied under Section 271(1)(b) of the Act on a deceased person, without proper intimation to the legal heirs and without bringing them on record, is valid? Assessee's Contention: The penalty was imposed on a dead person, which is invalid. The legal representative had informed the AO about the assessee's death, yet notices were served on the deceased, and the order was framed against him. Therefore, the penalty should be deleted. Revenue's Contention: The learned DR relied on the findings of the assessing officer.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(b),Section 253

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC”

Before: DR. ARJUN LAL SAINI

For Appellant: Shri Samir Bhuptani, AR
For Respondent: Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR
Hearing: 23/09/2025Pronounced: 31/10/2025

(�नधा�रण वष� / Assessment Year: 2007-08) Dhirajlal Nathubhai Bhut, Vs. The Income Tax Officer, Radhe Shyam, Nr. Panchayat, Ward-1(1)(1), Kothariya, Rajkot(Gujarat)-360002 Rajkot(Gujarat)-360001 �थायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No.: AIBPB0539Q (Appellant) (Respondent) Appellant by : Shri Samir Bhuptani, AR Respondent by : Shri Abhimanyu Singh Yadav, Sr. DR Date of Hearing : 23/09/2025 Date of Pronouncement : 31/10/2025 आदेश / O R D E R Per, Dr. Arjun Lal Saini, A.M.: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2007-08, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), Ahmedabad [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short “NFAC”), Delhi dated 25.11.2024, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(b) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 07.09.2015.

2.

The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows:

“1. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in passing the appellate order u/s. 250 r. w. s. 254 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 which is bad in law and without appropriate jurisdiction. 2. Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not following the directions issued by Honorable Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and thereby exceeded the jurisdiction and also made contempt of Hon'ble ITAT.

3.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not considering the submission of the appellant and in not providing reasonable opportunity of being heard to the appellant.

4.

Ld. CIT(A) erred in law as well as on facts in not adjudicating the grounds of appeal

raised by the appellant in his appeal memo.

5. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in initiating penalty on the name of Rajnish Bhut who was not the legal representative of the deceased appellant.

6. Ld. AO erred in law as well as on facts in levying the penalty of Rs. 70,000/- u/s: 271(1)(b) of the act.

7. The appellant craves for leave to add, alter or withdraw one or more grounds of appeal.”

3. The appeal filed by the assessee is barred by limitation by 230 days. The assessee moved a petition for condonation of delay, requesting the Bench to condone the delay. The learned Counsel adverted my attention to the reasons for condonation of delay before this Tribunal and urged for a benign view and sought condonation of delay of 230 days in filing the appeal before the Tribunal. However, learned DR for the revenue opposed the prayer of the assessee for condonation of delay. A perusal of the reasons and sufficient cause explained by the ld. Counsel for the assessee, gives me an impression of existence of mitigating circumstances to enable me to exercise my discretion in favour of the assessee. Accordingly, the delay is condoned in filing the appeal.

4. On merit, learned Counsel for the assessee argued that Ld. CIT(A) had adjudicated first penalty appeal of the assessee and then after remitted the quantum appeal, to file of the assessing officer for adjudication. The order of the Ld. CIT(A), then after was uploaded on the web portal. However, copy of the same was not received through email and since the assessee had already died and his e-mail account was not verified by his Tax Consultant, at all. This matter came to the knowledge of the ld. Counsel for the assessee, only when he verified the status of appeal from the perspective of amended provisions of Page 2 of 4 Section 251 of the Act and to make request to set-aside the matter to the file of the Assessing Officer. Besides, penalty under section 272(1) (b) of the Act was imposed on a dead person, which will not survive, as the representative of the dead person had already intimated to the assessing officer about the fact that assessee under consideration had died, despite of this fact, notices, of hearing were served on the dead person and order was also framed on the dead person. Therefore, penalty should be deleted.

5.

On the other hand, Ld. DR for the Revenue, relied on the findings of the assessing officer.

6.

I have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submission put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the fact of the case including the findings of the ld CIT(A) and other materials brought on record. I note that notices of hearing, during the penalty proceedings were served on the dead person, despite of the fact that legal representative of the deceased -assessee, had informed to the Department that the assessee had died. Therefore, notices served on the dead person is invalid in the eyes of law. I also note that penalty notices should have been issued on the legal heirs of the assessee, which the Assessing Officer has failed to do so, while imposing the penalty. Therefore, based on these facts and circumstances, I note that since the penalty has been imposed on the dead person without intimating about the initiation of penalty to the legal heir of the assessee and without bringing the legal heir on record, despite the fact that legal representative of the deceased assessee, had informed to the Department that the assessee had died. The Supreme Court, in a plethora of judgments, has taken the view that if the person sought to be taxed comes within the letter of the law, he must be taxed, however great the hardship may appear to the judicial mind to be. On the other hand, if the Page 3 of 4 State, seeking to recover the tax, cannot bring the citizen within the letter of the law, the citizen is free, however, apparently within the spirit of law the case might otherwise appear to be. The Supreme Court, in CST v. Modi Sugar Mills Ltd., AIR 1961 SC 1047, observed thus : "In interpreting a taxing statute, equitable considerations are entirely out of place. Nor can taxing statutes be interpreted on any presumptions or assumptions. The court must look squarely at the words of the statute and interpret them. It must interpret a taxing statute in the light of what is clearly expressed; it cannot imply anything which is not expressed; it cannot import provisions in the statute so as to supply any assumed deficiency."

7.

Therefore, considering the above facts and circumstances, I am of the view that revenue cannot recover the tax from the dead person and the dead person cannot be prosecuted and cannot be put into the jail/ imprisonment, or can not be keep in prison. Therefore, I, note that this penalty imposed by the assessing officer, does not have any leg to stand. Therefore, I delete the penalty.

8.

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.

More judgments on Section 271(1)(b)

All 2,912 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(b) →

Latest GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →