Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessment order for AY 2020-21 was passed on 12.09.2022. The assessee, an 88-year-old senior citizen, passed away on 18.11.2022, after which the legal heirs filed an appeal to the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.01.2023. The CIT(A) dismissed this appeal in limine due to a 99-day delay without condoning it or hearing the case on merits.
Held
The Tribunal found the CIT(A)'s approach to be pedantic and held that the death of the assessee constituted a sufficient and reasonable cause for the delay in filing the appeal. Emphasizing that substantial justice should prevail over technicalities, the Tribunal condoned the delay. Consequently, the CIT(A)'s order was set aside, and the matter was restored for fresh adjudication on merits, with directions to provide a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the legal heirs.
Key Issues
Whether the CIT(A) erred in dismissing the appeal solely due to delay without considering reasonable cause, particularly the death of the assessee, and whether such delay should be condoned to allow a hearing on merits.
Sections Cited
Section 68
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Order PER LALIET KUMAR, J.M: This is an appeal filed by the Assessee (Legal Heir of Late Sh. Rajinder Nath) against the order of the Ld. CIT(A)/NFAC, Delhi dt. 02/09/025 pertaining to Assessment Year 2020-21, whereby the Ld. CIT(A) dismissed the appeal of the assessee in limine on the ground that the appeal was filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation and the delay was not condoned. 2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. 1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in dismissing the appeal on account of delay caused in filing the appeal by 99 days.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the assessee was a super senior citizen of 88 years and not keeping good health and he unfortunately died on 12.10.2022 and, thus, there was a reasonable cause in not filing the appeal and, thus, the dismissal of appeal on account of delay is not justified.
3. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) is illegal as having been passed in the name of deceased person, though, the appeal was filed by the registered Legal Heir and, thus, the order as passed by the CIT(A) being illegal and void ab- initio, the same deserves to be quashed.
4. Without prejudice to above, the addition as made by the Assessing Officer of Rs. 13,05,00,000/-u/s 68 is uncalled and against the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
3. Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that the assessment order was passed on 12.09.2022. The assessee, who was a senior citizen, expired on 18.11.2022. Thereafter, the legal heirs filed the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A) on 20.01.2023. The Ld. CIT(A), however, refused to condone the delay and dismissed the appeal without adjudicating the issues on the merits by adopting a strict technical approach.
4. Against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee preferred in appeal before the Tribunal.
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that after the demise of the assessee, the legal heirs were required to complete legal formalities, obtain documents, and understand tax proceedings. It was contended that the delay occurred due to genuine hardship and circumstances beyond the control of the legal heirs. It was therefore pleaded that the delay deserved to be condoned and the matter be restored for decision on merits.
Per contra, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the ld. CIT(A).
We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. It is an undisputed fact that the assessee expired shortly after the assessment order was passed. The appeal was thereafter filed by the legal heirs. The period immediately following the death of a taxpayer is invariably accompanied by emotional distress, legal formalities, and practical difficulties. The law of limitation is not meant to destroy substantive rights but to ensure diligence in the prosecution of remedies. 7.1 In our considered opinion, the ld. CIT(A) has adopted a pedantic approach in refusing condonation of delay. The death of the assessee constitutes a sufficient and reasonable cause. It cannot be expected that the legal heirs would instantaneously be aware of tax proceedings or act with procedural precision immediately after bereavement. Further, the