SHAHAJI TUKARAM PATIL,SANGLI vs. ITO, WARD 5, SANGLI, SANGLI

PDF · subscribers
ITA 274/PUN/2024Status: DisposedITAT Pune17 April 2024AY 2012-13Bench: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA (Judicial Member)3 pages

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

AI SummaryDismissed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that to be considered a legal representative, the appellant must plead and prove that she represents the estate of the deceased assessee. As this was not demonstrated, her claim was rejected.

What were the facts?

The appellant, Smt. Sangeeta Shahaji Patil, claimed to be the legal representative of her deceased husband, the assessee, for assessment year 2012-13. She relied on the definition of 'legal representative' under the Income Tax Act and the Code of Civil Procedure.

What were the issues?

Whether the appellant, as the wife of the deceased assessee, adequately established her status as a legal representative under the Income Tax Act and CPC.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 2(29),Section 2(11)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, PUNE “SMC” BENCH : PUNE

Before: SHRI SATBEER SINGH GODARA

Hearing: 19.03.2024Pronounced: 17.04.2024

ORDER This assessee’s appeal for assessment year 2012-13, arises against the National Faceless Appeal Centre [in short the “NFAC”] Delhi’s Din and Order No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2022-23/ 1043669659(1), dated 29.06.2022, involving proceedings u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short “the Act”).

Heard both the parties. Case file perused.

2.

It emerges at the outset with the able assistance coming from both the parties that the appellant herein Smt. Sangeeta Shahaji Patil is stated to be the wife of the deceased assessee Shri Shahaji Tukaram Patil. Her case all along is that she is the “legal representative” of her husband in light of sec.2(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 read with the corresponding provision i.e., sec.2(11)

1.

2 ITA.No.274/PUN./2024 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. There could be hardly any dispute that the legislature has adopted the definition of a “legal representative” in sec.2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure mutatis mutandis in the Income-tax law. The Code of Civil Procedure defines a “legal representative” as under :

“Sec.2(11)…..”legal representative” means a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person, and includes any person who intermeddles with the estate of the deceased and where a party sues or is sued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.”

2.1. It is further deemed appropriate to reproduce sec.2(29) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 reading as under :

“Sec.2(29) “legal representative" has the meaning assigned to it in clause (11) of section 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (5 of 1908) ;

3.

Suffice to say, it is crystal clear that before an applicant seeks to claim the status of “legal representative” under Income-tax law, he/she has to plead and prove the corresponding claim of having “represented the estate of the concerned deceased-assessee”, which has remained un-complied in the instant case. There are no details of the assessee’s estate and the same being represented by this appellant in the case records. Faced with this situation, it is deemed appropriate at this stage to reject the appellant Smt.

3 ITA.No.274/PUN./2024 Sangeeta Shahaji Patil w/o. late Shri Shahaji Tukaram Patil’s claim of being the deceased-assessee’s legal representative, subject to a rider that she will be very much at liberty to revive all these appeals as and when the above necessary statutory conditions envisaged u/sec.2(29) of the Act are fulfilled as per law. Her instant appeal I.T.A.No.274/PUN./2024 stand rejected for want of a valid locus at this stage. Ordered accordingly.

All other pleadings on merits stand rendered academic in the instant appeal.

4.

This appellant’s appeal I.T.A.No.274/PUN./2024 is dismissed in foregoing terms.

Order pronounced in the open Court on 17.04.2024.

More judgments on Section 2(29)

All 77 judgments and leading authorities on Section 2(29) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →