SHIVAM DAIRY FARM,HATHRAS vs. PR.CIT., ALIGARH

PDF · subscribers
ITA 292/AGR/2019Status: DisposedITAT Agra03 February 2025AY 2014-15Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member), SHRI M. BALAGANESH (Accountant Member)1 pages

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

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal noted that the PCIT's revision order under section 263 was passed without properly impleading the legal representative of the deceased assessee. The Tribunal found that the PCIT had not taken steps to ascertain the particulars of the legal representative as required by law.

What were the facts?

The assessee's appeal for AY 2014-15 arose from an order passed by the PCIT under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. The assessee's representative did not appear for the hearing, and the case proceeded ex-parte. The PCIT's order was passed against the legal heir of the deceased proprietor, Sh. Shiv Kumar.

What were the issues?

Whether the PCIT's revision order under section 263 is sustainable in law when the legal representative of the deceased assessee was not properly impleaded.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 2(29),Section 2(11)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “DB” AGRA

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH

Hearing: 03.02.2025Pronounced: 03.02.2025
3.

We notice at the outset that the learned PCIT has passed his impugned section 263 revision order against the “Prop. Legal Heir of Sh. Shiv Kumar……….”. Learned CIT(DR) vehemently argues that the impugned order has been passed in the name of proprietor/legal heir of Sh. Shiv Kumar, who was proprietor of M/s. Shivam Dairy Farm. He could hardly rebut the clinching fact that there is no indication in the impugned revision order or in the case of records that learned PCIT had taken any steps ascertaining the particulars of deceased proprietor Sh. Shiv Kumar’s, “legal representative” satisfying the statutory conditions under section 2(29) read with section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →