Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee passed away during the appellate proceedings before the CIT(A). The appellate order was subsequently issued in the name of the deceased person, rendering it legally invalid. An additional document, a sale deed, was filed but not considered by the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the order issued in the name of the deceased person was legally invalid. The Tribunal also noted that an additional document (sale deed) was crucial for resolving the issue but was not considered by the lower appellate authority.
Key Issues
Whether the appellate order passed in the name of a deceased person is valid and whether an additional document should be considered for fresh adjudication.
Sections Cited
Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, ‘B’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED & SHRI PRAKASH CHAND YADAV
PER WASEE M AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, dated 29/07/2024, vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067107398(1), for the assessment year 2017-18.
In this case, the assessee passed away while pursuing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 12/05/2024. However, the appellate order was issued in the name of the deceased person on 29/07/2024. It was submitted by the ld. AR that this order is legally invalid as it was framed in the name of a deceased individual. Consequently, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the matter should be remanded to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the name of the legal heir of the deceased. Additional grounds of appeal were also submitted to this effect.
3. On the merit of the case, the learned AR submitted that an additional document, a sale deed placed on pages 8 to 19 of the paper book, was filed before the learned CIT(A). However, this document was not considered during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the learned AR requested that the matter be set aside to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of the provisions of law and the additional document on record.
4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to remanding the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the law.
5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and a review of the relevant materials on record, it is evident that the order issued by the learned CIT(A) was framed in the name of the deceased person. However, it was the responsibility of the assessee or their legal representative to notify the learned CIT(A) of the assessee's demise and request the inclusion of the legal heir in the proceedings, which was not done. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and fairness, especially given the special circumstances of the assessee's demise, we . are inclined to remand the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
6. Furthermore, the additional document filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings—the sale deed—was not considered, although it appears to be crucial for resolving the issue. Accordingly, under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, we admit this document for advancing substantial justice to the parties’ concern and direct the learned CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of this additional evidence. Hence, the assessee's appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.