Late Satishkumar Bhagatram Chadha Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
CIT(A) Order in Name of Deceased & Without Sharing Remand Report – ITAT Pune Restores Case
Late Satishkumar Chadha had filed return on 09.03.2018. AO, for want of compliance, passed ex parte assessment u/s 144 on 09.12.2019 making addition of ₹16,13,000/- u/s 69A for unexplained deposits. Appeal was filed on 07.01.2020. However, during pendency of appeal, the Assessee died in September 2021.
Despite this, CIT(A) passed order on 14.03.2025 in the name of the deceased, without bringing legal heirs on record. Further, CIT(A) had called for remand report from AO under Rule 46A but failed to supply its copy to the legal heir for rebuttal. Tribunal held this as a clear violation of principles of natural justice.
Accordingly, Tribunal set aside CIT(A)’s order & restored matter back for de novo adjudication. CIT(A) was directed to (i) bring legal heirs on record, (ii) share remand report with them, & (iii) provide adequate opportunity of hearing.
Appeal order passed in name of deceased & without sharing remand report invalid – matter remanded to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after hearing legal heir.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
This is an appeal filed by the Legal Heir of Late Satishkumar B Chadha against the Order u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act passed by Commissioner Of Income Tax (appeal) (NFAC), herein referred as CIT(A), for AY 2017-18 on 14/03/2025, emanating from Assessment Order u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act dated 9/12/2019.
