The Pune bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) held that appellant failing to satisfy the criteria under section 2(11) of the CPC leads to dismissal of his petition seeking his impleadmennt as “legal representative”
It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein Lt. Karim Khan Shahnoorkhan Patel; who had filed the instant appeal way back on 29.02.2015, has left for his heavenly abode on 04.06.2021. It was informed that one Mr. Javed Karim Khan Patel has filed his petition seeking to pursue his deceased father’s file preferred against the both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing penalty of Rs.29,85,790/- under section.271(1)(c) of the Act.
After hearing both parties, the the tribunal noted that the reply received from the applicant’s side through his learned counsel is in negative only. That being the case, the bench was of the considered opinion that the section 159 dealing with liability of a “legal representative” deserves to be read in conjunction with section 2(29) of the Act defining such a representative; thereby adopting the corresponding definition, in section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. The bench deemed it appropriate to reproduce the definition of a “legal representative” defined in Sec.2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
The two bench member consisting of Dr. Dipak P.Ripote (Accountant member) and S.S Godara (Judicial member) held that since the appellant has failed to satisfy the above clinching criterion his instant petition seeking his impleadment as the “legal representative” fails as per Shri V.V. Ramarao Naidu Vs. CIT. Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal also fails as this necessary corollary with a rider with it shall very much open for his legal representative(s); if any to pursue the same as per law. Thus the appeal was dismissed.
Subscribe Taxscan Premium to view the JudgmentSupport our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
