MADAN LAL TOMAR,AGRA vs. ITO, WARD 2(1)(1), AGRA, AGRA
Facts
The assessee's appeal was preferred against an order that dismissed the appeal upon rejection of a condonation of delay request. The assessee's representative brought to the Tribunal's notice that the order was passed against a deceased person who had died prior to the order's pronouncement.
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal was not maintainable because it was filed on behalf of the deceased and not through their legal heirs, as required by law. The explanation that the order was passed against the deceased was deemed untenable.
Key Issues
Maintainability of an appeal filed on behalf of a deceased person, when the impugned order was passed after the assessee's death.
Sections Cited
250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, AGRA
Before: SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH & SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, AGRA BEFORE :SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ITA No.44/Agr/2025 Assessment Year: 2007-08
Madan Lal Tomar, Vs. Income-tax Officer, 51, Keshavkunj, Pratap Nagar, Ward 1(1)(1), Agra. Agra. PAN : AAXPT3982D (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Rajesh Malhotra, C.A. Department by Sh. Shailendra Srivastava, Sr. DR
Date of hearing 02.04.2025 Date of pronouncement 29.04.2025
ORDER Per Sunil Kumar Singh, Judicial Member: This appeal has been preferred by assessee against the impugned order dated 28.11.2024 passed in Appeal No. NFAC/2006-07/10029998 by the Ld. Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals), NFAC, Delhi u/s. 250(6) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) wherein the ld. CIT(Appeals) has dismissed assessee’s appeal upon rejection of appellant’s request for condonation of delay. 2. At the very outset, it has been brought to the notice of the Tribunal by ld. Representative for the assessee that the impugned order has been
ITA No.44/Agr/2025
passed against the deceased, Madan Lal Tomar who died on 21.09.2010,
submitting that the impugned order is nullity, having been passed against
the dead person.
Learned representative for the Revenue has pointed out that the first
appeal before ld. CIT(Appeals) was filed by the legal representatives of the
deceased. Hence, no fault could be found in the impugned order on this
aspect.
Perusal of the impugned order shows that this order has been passed
against the deceased Madan Lal Tomar. However, the present appeal has
also been filed on behalf of the deceased Madan Lal Tomar, who according
to ld. AR, died on 21.09.2010. When asked in respect of the same, he
replied that as the impugned order has been passed against the deceased,
hence, this appeal has been filed on behalf of the deceased. The
explanation of ld. AR is not tenable under Law. The instant appeal was
required to be filed on behalf of the legal heirs of the deceased who are in
existence as per the description in assessment order and in Form-35 filed
before the first appellate authority. The instant appeal filed on 27.01.2025 on
behalf of the deceased person Madan Lal Tomar who is said to have died
on 21.09.2010 is not maintainable.
2 | P a g e
ITA No.44/Agr/2025
In the result, the appeal is dismissed as non-maintainable being filed
on behalf of the deceased and not through legal heirs. However, the legal
heirs shall be at liberty to file the appeal a fresh, if the limitation period so
permits.
Order pronounced in the open court on 29.04.2025.
Sd/- Sd/-
(BRAJESH KUMAR SINGH) (SUNIL KUMAR SINGH) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Dated: 29.04.2025 *aks/- Copy forwarded to: 1. Appellant 2. Respondent 3. CIT 4. CIT(A) 5. DR Asst. Registrar, ITAT, Agra
3 | P a g e
