ASHOK KUMAR PINJANI THROUGH LEGAL HEIR RAJKUMARI PINJANI,RAIPUR vs. ITO WARD 4(4), RAIPUR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 313/RPR/2025Status: DisposedITAT Raipur18 June 2025AY 2013-146 pages

In favour of the Revenue: the assessee's appeal was dismissed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal dismissed the assessee's appeal, upholding the CIT(A)'s decision to set aside the assessment and remand the case to the AO. This remand was deemed correct as it allows the AO to properly verify and consider the new documents and facts, including the assessee's death, which were first presented during the appellate stage. The Tribunal also rejected the assessee's adjournment application to ensure timely delivery of justice.

What were the facts?

The original assessee died before reassessment proceedings concluded. The AO completed the assessment ex-parte under Section 144 as no responses were received to notices, and the AO was unaware of the assessee's demise. During the first appeal, the legal heir presented new documents, including a death certificate and details of the deceased's income filed under Section 44AD, which were not before the AO.

What were the issues?

Whether the CIT(A) was correct in remanding the case to the AO for fresh assessment after new documents were submitted for the first time; and the justification for rejecting the assessee's adjournment application.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 144,Section 148,Section 139(1),Section 44AD,Section 251(1)(a)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, RAIPUR BENCH “SMC”, RAIPUR

Before: SHRI PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY

For Respondent: Dr. Priyanka Patel, Sr. DR
Hearing: 10.06.2025Pronounced: 18.06.2025

आदेश / ORDER

PER PARTHA SARATHI CHAUDHURY, JM

1.

This appeal preferred by the assessee emanates from the order of the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, Delhi dated 11.03.2025 for the assessment year 2013-14 as per the grounds of appeal on record.

2. At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee, however, an adjournment application has been filed which is rejected following the guidelines enshrined in the decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Ishwarlal Mali Rathod Vs. Gopal and Ors., passed in Special Leave Petition (Civil) Nos. 14117-14118 of 2021, order dated 20.09.2021 wherein it was held and observed that as on today the judiciary and the justice delivery system is facing acute problem of delay which ultimately affects the rights of the litigant to access to justice and speedy trial. Arrears are mounting because of such delay and dilatory tactics and asking of repeated adjournments by the advocates and mechanically and in routine manner being granted by the courts. It cannot be disputed that due to delay in access to justice and not getting the timely justice it may shake the trust and confidence of the litigants in the justice delivery system. Therefore, the Hon'ble Apex Court has directed specifically that adjournments should not be granted in a routine manner and mechanically and such grant of adjournment by the Courts should not be a cause for delay in dispensing justice. I am of the considered view that sufficient opportunities have been already provided to the assessee and the department in these prolonged litigation. That, any further delay in disposing of the matter would ultimately result in hindrance of justice and would act as defiance to the directions given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court (supra) and I can never be a party to such an act and, therefore, in such factual scenario and observations even though the Ld. Counsel had applied for adjournment, I reject the same. The matter was heard after recording the submissions of the Ld. Sr. DR and on careful consideration of the documents/materials on record.

3.

The relevant facts as emerging from the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC are that during the course of reassessment proceedings, the assessee had not responded to the statutory notices issued by the A.O and served on the assessee, therefore, the A.O had passed order u/s.144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ( for short ‘the Act’).

4.

During the course of appellate proceedings, the legal heir of the assessee stated that the assessee being deceased which fact had not been brought up before the A.O. However, the copy of the death certificate was produced before the Ld.CIT(Appeals)/NFAC. Further, it was observed by the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC that no return of income u/s.139(1) of the Act was filed by the assessee. As per the death certificate, the assessee had died on 08.07.2018 and notice u/s.148 of the Act was issued on 25.03.2019 which was also not responded by the legal representative of the assessee. That also, in response to the notice u/s.148 of the Act, the said legal representative of the assessee did not file any return of income. The A.O was also not informed about the demise of the assessee.

5.

Be that as it may, at the appellate stage before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC, the legal representative of the assessee had furnished a copy of the return of the deceased assessee for A.Y.2012-13 wherein the return of income had been computed u/s. 44AD of the Act. The copy of the bank passbook a/w. cash flow statement were also submitted before the first appellate authority a/w. copy of computation of income wherein turnover was estimated at Rs.18,00,000/- and net profit estimated at Rs.1,80,000/-. These documents were not available during the course of assessment proceedings before the A.O. The Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC therefore vide amendment brought in by the Finance Act, 2024 to clause (a) to Section 251(1) of the Act w.e.f. 01.10.2024 had set-aside the reassessment order to the file of the A.O to consider all the documents that were placed before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC for the first time and to make fresh assessment in the case of the assessee.

6.

The Ld. Sr. DR fairly submitted that as per the principles of natural justice, the facts needs to be verified at the ground level through examination of records and that the fact of the matter is that though various documentary evidences were furnished before the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which were not there before the A.O and thus, the action of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC to remand the matter to the file of the A.O was correct as per law and in interest of substantial justice. I am absolutely in agreement with the Ld. Sr.DR that in the present facts and circumstances, one opportunity has to be given to both the assessee and the department for determining the rights and liabilities of the parties herein substantially through verification of records and examination of the documents that have been submitted by the assessee. Accordingly, I do not find any infirmity with the order of the Ld. CIT(Appeals)/NFAC which is hereby upheld.

7.

As per the above terms grounds of appeal of the assessee are dismissed.

8.

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed. Order pronounced in open court on 18th day of June, 2025.

More judgments on Section 148

All 35,022 judgments and leading authorities on Section 148 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →