Case Law Details
Yogesh Bhomraj Porwal Vs PCIT (ITAT Pune)
Introduction: The recent order from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune in the case of Yogesh Bhomraj Porwal vs. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Pune (PCIT) has raised questions about the legal standing of the appellant in challenging the decision.
Detailed Analysis: The appeal challenges the DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020-21/1030289177(1) dated 02/02/2021 of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Pune, passed under section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961.
The central issue in the appeal revolves around the maintainability of the case. In the event of the death of an assessee, the right to appeal against the order vests with the legal representative [LR] of the deceased assessee. However, the ITAT Pune found that the appellant failed to establish with cogent material that he represents the estate of the deceased assessee, as required by section 2(29) of the Act read with section 2(11) of the Code of Civil Procedure [CPC].
The ITAT emphasized that the term ‘LR’ includes a person who in law represents the estate of a deceased person. The appellant, in this case, was unable to demonstrate that he meets the criteria outlined in the Act and CPC.
Conclusion: In light of the appellant’s failure to establish legal standing as the representative of the deceased assessee, the ITAT Pune dismissed the appeal. The order highlights the importance of complying with legal requirements, especially in matters involving the representation of a deceased assessee. The appellant is granted leave to revive the appeal by ‘LR’ in accordance with the provisions of the Income-tax Act and the Code of Civil Procedure. This decision underscores the significance of procedural adherence in tax litigation.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
The present appeal challenges DIN & Order No. ITBA/REV/F/REV5/2020- 21/1030289177(1) dt. 02/02/2021 of Principle Commissioner of Income Tax-Central Pune, passed u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [for short ‘the Act’].
2. We have heard rival contention of both the parties on the limited issue of maintainability of this appeal; and subject to rule 18 of ITAT-Rules, 1963 perused relevant material placed on records.
3. In case of death, the right to appeal against the impugned order vest with legal representative [for short ‘LR’] of the deceased assessee, as this LR u/s 159(3) of the Act is deemed to be an assessee. In terms of section 2(29) of the Act r.w.s 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure [for short ‘CPC’], the ‘LR’ 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 issued in a representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued.
4. The instant appeal instituted against the impugned order, in our considered view lacks the necessary legal standing of the appellant to engage in this proceedings as the appellant failed to establish with cogent material that he represents the estate of deceased assessee in terms of section 2(11) of CPC r.w.s 2(29) of the Act. For the forgoing reason, we dismiss this appeal with a leave to revive by ‘LR’ in accordance with the provisions of the Act and CPC.
5. In result, the appeal of the appellant is DISMISSED in above terms.
U/r 34 of ITAT Rules, order pronounced in open court on this Wednesday 01st day of November, 2023.
