Order Not Invalid Merely Because Passed in Deceased’s Name: ITAT Restores Matter for Fresh Adjudication [Read Order]
The Tribunal ruled that exclusion of evidence has caused prejudice to the assessee’s case.
Deceased - ITAT - Taxscan
Deceased - ITAT - Taxscan
The Bench of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, Chandigarh, held that an appellate order cannot be declared invalid merely because it was passed in the name of a deceased assessee, where the appeal itself had been filed under the deceased’s name. However, observing that the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] failed to admit additional evidence and did not adjudicate key legal issues, the Tribunal remanded the matter for fresh adjudication
The appeal was filed by Late Shri Lakha Singh, represented through his legal heir Hira Singh, against the order of the CIT(A), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, dated September 28, 2024, for the Assessment Year 2012-13.
The Assessing Officer (AO) had completed reassessment under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, determining total income at ₹39,40,000. Additions included ₹60,00,000 towards alleged unexplained investment in immovable property and ₹39,40,000 towards unexplained cash deposits.
During the pendency of the reassessment, the assessee expired on January 17, 2020. The legal heir subsequently filed an appeal before the CIT(A) through the Income-tax portal. However, despite being informed of the death, the CIT(A) passed the order in the deceased’s name, confirming both additions and rejecting admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules, 1962.
Also Read: Income Tax Reassessment Notice u/s 148 against Dead Person is Null and Void: ITAT [Read Order]
Appearing for the legal heir, Sudhir Sehgal, argued that the CIT(A)’s order was void-ab-initio, having been passed in the name of a deceased person. It was submitted that the death was duly intimated to the department and that the CIT(A) erred in proceeding in disregard of this fact.
It was contended that the assessee, being an octogenarian suffering from prolonged illness and frequent hospitalization, was unable to comply with assessment proceedings constituting “sufficient cause” for non-appearance. The CIT(A)’s refusal to admit additional evidence, without calling for a remand report from the AO, was said to be in violation of natural justice.
It was further urged that legal grounds concerning non-service of notice under Section 148 and the validity of reassessment proceedings were ignored. Therefore, the matter be remanded for de novo consideration after admitting the evidence.
Appearing for the Revenue, Vivek Vardhan, submitted that the appeal was itself filed in the name of the deceased, and therefore, no fault lay with the CIT(A) in passing the order under that name. It was further submitted that the assessee had ample opportunity during the assessment stage but failed to comply.
It was contended that no medical proof of incapacity was furnished and that mere old age cannot justify admission of additional evidence. It was also argued that the assessment, having been completed prior to the death, was valid in law.
The Bench comprising Judicial Member, Laliet Kumar and Accountant Member, Manoj Kumar Aggarwal observed that although the assessee’s death on January 17, 2020, was undisputed, the appeal before the CIT(A) had itself been filed in the name of the deceased and not in the name of the legal heir. Therefore, the appellate order could not be held invalid merely for being passed in the deceased’s name.
However, the Tribunal found merit in the plea regarding rejection of additional evidence. It held that the assessee’s advanced age and ill health constituted sufficient cause for non-compliance and that the CIT(A) should have admitted the evidence or at least sought a remand report under Rule 46A(3) from the Assessing Officer.
The Bench ruled that grounds such as the validity of reassessment and service of statutory notice had not been adjudicated, rendering the appellate order incomplete.
Accordingly, the matter was restored to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication, with direction and adequate opportunity of hearing to the legal heir.
Thus, the appeal was allowed for statistical purposes.
Support our journalism by subscribing to Taxscan premium. Follow us on Telegram for quick updates
