Loading judgment…
Facts
The appeal was filed by the assessee against the order of CIT(A). During the pendency of the appeal before CIT(A), the assessee, an old aged person, passed away. The CIT(A) passed an ex parte order after the assessee's death without impleading the legal representative.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A) order was passed ex parte after the death of the assessee. The Tribunal set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and restored the matter to the file of CIT(A).
Key Issues
Whether the ex parte order passed by the CIT(A) after the death of the assessee without impleading legal heirs is sustainable.
Sections Cited
250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA
Before: SRI SANJAY GARG
order : 10.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18.
2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal:
“1. The order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is unjust, unwarranted and bad in law.
Ld. CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate and/or overlooked and/or did not consider the submissions made by the appellant as also other facts of the case.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that the appellant did not make mandatory payment of amount equal to amount of advance tax and as such the appeal was not eligible for admission.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant, being senior citizen enjoyed the higher threshold limit for payment of taxes, if any.
I.T.A. No.: 251/PAT/2024 Late Yogendra Ray, AY : 2017-18 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not affording fair opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for non- deposit of any tax.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the addition of Rs.12,98,500/- being the amount deposited in bank accounts of the appellant on the ground that the appellant failed to establish source and nature of cash deposits made in old currency.
On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the addition of Rs.2,82,461/- being the amount determining as business income of the appellant from trading activities.
The appellant craves leave to add, amend, rectify, modify or otherwise alter any ground of appeal
.”
3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee who was an old aged person, got severe sickness and he ultimately passed away on 19.04.2022. Further, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is dated 18.12.2023 i.e. after the death of the appellant/assessee. No one prosecuted the matter on behalf of the assessee after his death resulting into the aforesaid ex parte order. Even legal representative of the assessee has not been impleaded by the ld. CIT(A). However, coming into the knowledge of the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been preferred through the legal heirs of the assessee.
4. Considering the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee/LR of the assessee, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee/LR of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes.