LATE KESHAV PANDURANG GADRE TH. L/H MANISH GADRE (SON),BHOPAL vs. ITO-2(4), BHOPAL
What did the Tribunal hold?
The Tribunal noted that notices were not properly served on the legal representative of the deceased assessee, especially during the Covid-19 pandemic. The appeal was set aside and remanded to the AO for fresh adjudication.
What were the facts?
The assessee passed away before the assessment order was passed. The assessment was reopened and an addition was made for cash deposits. The appeal before the CIT(A) was dismissed for non-prosecution due to non-receipt of notices.
What were the issues?
Whether the assessment and subsequent appellate proceedings were valid when the assessee had already expired and notices were not properly served on the legal representative.
Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE
This appeal by assessee is directed against the order dated 13.03.2024 of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal) National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC) Delhi, for A.Y.2011-12.
None has appeared on behalf of the assessee when this appeal was called for hearing. At the outset, we note that this appeal has been filed by son of the assessee as legal representative of the deceased assessee who expired on 12th April 2015 as per the copy
ITANo.370/Ind/2024 Late Keshav Pandurang Dadre of the death certificate filed by the legal heir. The AO has passed the assessment order on 17.11.2018 u/s 147 and made an addition of Rs.13,45,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account of the assessee in absence of any explanation on behalf of the assessee. The assessment order was challenged before the CIT(A) and thereafter the appeal was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre in view of the CBDT Notification no.75/2020 dated 25.09.2020. Since there was no representation before the CIT(A) therefore, the appeal of the assesse was dismissed for non- prosecution. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case when the assessee already died in the month of April 2015, we propose to hear and disposed of this appeal ex-parte.
The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
1. The confirmation addition of Rs.13,45,000/- by the learned CIT, NFAC, NEWDELHI is not justified on the facts of the case and circumstances of the case and therefore the said unlawful and unjustified confirmation of addition be deleted. The justification given during filing of the appeal was supported by the documents. All the notices including the notice u/s 148 was issued after the death of the appellant. The reasonable opportunity was not given to the appellant. The son of the deceased appellant was good enough prepared to reply all the notices, whoever they were not severed properly. There was change in Personal Hearing to National Faceless Appellate Centre NFAC.
We have heard the ld. DR and carefully perused the impugned order of CIT(A) as well as AO. The AO has made an addition on account of deposit made in the bank account as unexplained income of the assessee after reopening of the assessment vide Page 2 of 4
ITANo.370/Ind/2024 Late Keshav Pandurang Dadre notices u/s 148 dated 24.03.2018. Further the legal representative of the assessee has explained that since the case was migrated to National Faceless Appeal Centre, the notice issued by the CIT(A) were not received by the legal representative of the deceased assesse. We further note that out of the four notices issued by the CIT(A) two were issued during the Covid-19 pandemic and last two notices were issued within a short period of 10 days and therefore, the possibility could not be ruled out that these last notices were not in the knowledge of the legal Representative of assessee. Accordingly in the facts and circumstances of the case when the CIT(A) has dismissed the appeal for non-prosecution, we set aside the impugned order of the CIT(A) and remand the matter to the record of the AO for fresh adjudication after giving an appropriate opportunity of hearing to legal representative of the deceased assessee.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open court on 23 .08.2024.
More judgments on Section 147
- ACIT Central Bilaspur, Bilaspur vs Arun Kumar Agrawal, SaktiITSSA 26/RPR/2025[2018-19]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2018-19
- Vinod Agrawal, Kawardha vs Assisstant Commissioner of Income Tax…ITA 666/RPR/2026[2019-20]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2019-20
- Sar Business Tradelink Private Limited… vs Income Tax Officer, Ward - 1(2), RaipurITA 599/RPR/2026[2014-15]Status: Heard21 Oct 2026AY 2014-15
- Tarunaben Maganlal Bhut, Navagam vs ITO Ward 2(2)(1), RajkotITA 673/RJT/2026[2024-25]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2024-25
- Neo Incorporation, Rajkot vs DCIT Circle- 1(2), RajkotITA 471/RJT/2026[2012-2013]Status: Disposed21 Oct 2026AY 2012-2013
Recent GST High Court judgments
Search GST case law →- Kavya Shrivastava vs. Hdfc Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Gaurav Jewellers Through Proprietor Gaurav Barjatiya vs. Branch Manager Yes Bank LTD.Madhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Kavya Shrivastava vs. State Bank Of INDIAMadhya Pradesh · 15 Oct 2026
- Paresh Textiles Prop Paresh Gudhka vs. Superintendent Range Iv Div VBombay · 15 Oct 2026
- M/S Palladium Constructions PVT LTD. vs. Principal Commissioner Of Central TaxKarnataka · 15 Oct 2026
