Loading judgment…
Facts
The appellant, claiming to be the "legal representative" of the deceased assessee, filed two appeals against the CIT(A)/NFAC's orders for assessment year 2011-12. The delay in filing the appeals was condoned. The appellant, son of the deceased, argued he was entitled to file the appeal as a "legal representative".
Held
The Tribunal held that the appellant had not satisfied the statutory conditions to be considered a "legal representative" under the Act. Therefore, his claim as such was not maintainable at this stage.
Key Issues
Whether the appellant, as the son of the deceased assessee, qualifies as a "legal representative" to file the appeal in his own right without meeting statutory criteria.
Sections Cited
147, 144, 271(1)(c), 2(29), 2(11), 159
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA
Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA & SHRI M. BALAGANESH
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, AGRA BENCH, “SMC” AGRA BEFORE SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER (Through Video Conferencing) & 18/Agr/2024 Assessment Year: 2011-12 Vs. Income Tax Officer, Sh. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, Legal Heir of Sushila Devi Agarwal, Ward-1(1)(5), Kothi No. 25, Sec-3, Agra Vibhav Nagar, Agra PAN :AGBPS5776G (Appellant) (Respondent) Assessee by Sh. Anurag Sinha, Adv. Department by Sh. Shailendra Shrivastava, Sr. DR Date of hearing 05.02.2025 Date of pronouncement 05.02.2025 ORDER
PER SATBEER SINGH GODARA, JM
This appellant, Sh. Dilip Kumar Agarwal, alleged “legal representative” of the deceased assessee herein, Smt. Sushila Devi Agarwal, has filed the instant two appeals against the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)/National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short, the “CIT(A)/NFAC”], Delhi’s orders dated 27.09.2023 and 14.11.2023 for assessment year 2011-12 in DIN and orders no. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1056619244(1) and ITA Nos.16 & 18/Agr/2024 ITBA/NFAC/S/ 250/2023-24/1057930400(1) involving proceedings under section 147 r.w.s. 144 and 271(1)(c) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’), respectively.
Heard both the parties. Case files perused. 3. The delay of 48 days in filing the assessee’s instant appeals stands condoned as per her contentions/averments explaining reasonable cause on account of the situation beyond her control. 4. It emerges at the outset that the appellate before us Sh. Dilip Kumar Agarwal claims himself as the “legal representative” of the deceased assessee Smt. Sushila Devi Agarwal, who is stated to have left for his heavenly abode on 20.12.2020. Learned counsel submits that since the appellant happens to be the son of the deceased assessee, he is entitled to file the instant appeal as his “legal representative”. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the assessee’s foregoing arguments regarding maintainability of his instant appeal. It is made clear that neither he has proved to have satisfied the relevant statutory conditions defining a “legal representative” u/s 2(29) of the Act r.w.s. 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 of Act that he represents the estate of his deceased assessee or he is the intermeddler thereof, nor any action is stated to have been initiated against him u/s 159 of the Act.
That being the case, we find no merit in the appellant’s claim as “legal representative” of the deceased assessee and reject his instant appeal at this stage in very terms, subject to a rider that he shall be at liberty to file a fresh appeal as and when he either satisfies the statutory conditions of a “legal representative” under section 2(11) (supra) or he is proceeded against by the department under section 159 of the Act, whichever is earlier. Ordered accordingly.