Case Law Details
Shri Lakha Singh Vs ITO (ITAT Chandigarh)
The appeal before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT), Chandigarh, concerned an assessment passed in the name of the deceased assessee, Shri Lakha Singh, and the confirmation of additions by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] totaling ₹99,40,000 without admitting additional evidence. The original additions, determined in a reassessment order under Section 144 read with Section 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (IT Act), comprised ₹60,00,000 for unexplained investment in property and ₹39,40,000 for unexplained cash deposits.
Issues and Assessee’s Contentions
The legal heir, who filed the appeal after the assessee’s death on January 17, 2020, raised multiple grounds:
1. Validity of CIT(A)’s Order: The CIT(A)’s order was argued to be void-ab-initio as it was passed in the name of the deceased person, despite the death being formally intimated.
2. Admission of Additional Evidence (Rule 46A): The CIT(A) erred in rejecting additional evidence that would explain the source of the additions. The legal heir argued that the original non-compliance during assessment was due to the assessee’s advanced age, prolonged ill-health, and frequent hospitalization, which constituted sufficient cause under Rule 46A of the Income-tax Rules.
3. Validity of Assessment Proceedings: The CIT(A) failed to adjudicate vital legal grounds concerning the non-service of notice under Section 148 and the overall validity of the reassessment proceedings, which went to the root of the matter.
4. Additions on Merits: The two large additions, confirmed by the CIT(A) after rejecting the additional evidence on a technicality, were factually incorrect as the sources (including sale proceeds of agricultural land) could be explained.
The Departmental Representative (DR) supported the CIT(A)’s order, arguing that the assessee had ample opportunity during assessment and failed to furnish documentary proof of medical incapacity. The DR contended that the CIT(A) was justified in not admitting the evidence, citing judicial precedents that old age alone does not relieve statutory obligations. Furthermore, the DR pointed out that the appeal to the CIT(A) was itself filed in the name of the late assessee, justifying the CIT(A)’s approach.
Judicial Precedents
While the ITAT’s order referenced several judicial precedents cited by the CIT(A) and the assessee, the tribunal itself relied on broader principles of justice and statutory compliance:
- Non-Adjudication of Legal Grounds: The ITAT confirmed the principle that appellate authorities must specifically adjudicate on legal grounds that challenge the jurisdictional validity of an assessment (like non-service of a Section 148 notice), as failure to do so renders the appellate order incomplete.
- Admission of Additional Evidence (Rule 46A): The ITAT’s decision was rooted in the principle of providing an effective opportunity to the assessee. The tribunal, disagreeing with the CIT(A)’s restrictive view, held that the cumulative circumstances—advanced age, severe illness, and subsequent death—clearly established sufficient cause for non-compliance before the Assessing Officer (AO). This justified the admission of additional evidence in the interest of justice, irrespective of the precedents cited by the CIT(A) (such as CIT v. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. and ITO v. Fairdia Foundation), which were found to be applied too rigidly.
ITAT’s Holding and Directions
The ITAT, Chandigarh, allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, setting aside the CIT(A)’s order and restoring the matter for fresh adjudication.
1. Validity of CIT(A)’s Order: The ITAT rejected the assessee’s contention that the CIT(A)’s order was void-ab-initio solely because it was passed in the deceased’s name. The tribunal reasoned that since the appeal was filed in the deceased’s name by the legal heir, a technical error in the name of the order would not automatically vitiate the entire appellate process. Furthermore, even if the CIT(A)’s order were quashed on this ground, the original assessment order would remain in effect.
2. Admission of Additional Evidence: The ITAT found merit in the legal heir’s plea, ruling that the combination of advanced age and prolonged ill-health was sufficient cause for non-compliance. The CIT(A)’s failure to admit the evidence or, at a minimum, call for a remand report under Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules from the AO was an omission leading to the denial of an effective opportunity.
3. Directions: The ITAT directed the CIT(A) to:
-
- Admit and consider the additional evidence filed by the legal heir.
- Obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer regarding the additional evidence.
- Specifically adjudicate on the legal grounds raised concerning the validity of the reassessment proceedings and service of the statutory notice.
The ITAT explicitly clarified that it was not expressing any opinion on the merits of the additions or the legal issues, leaving them open for fresh adjudication by the CIT(A).
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHANDIGARH
This appeal by the assessee is directed against the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi dated 28.09.2024 for the assessment year 2012-13.
2. In the present appeal Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. That the Ld. CIT(A) has grossly erred in passing the order in the name of the deceased person i.e the assessee namely Sh. Lakha Singh, though the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed by the “Legal Heir” who is a registered representative of the assessee, at the Income Tax Portal as well.
2. That the Ld. CIT(A) knew very well that the assessee died on 17/01/2020 as per the submissions made before him vide submission dated 27/05/2024 and, thus, passing of the order in the name of the deceased person is void-ab-initio as per the decided case laws of the different High Court and Benches of the Hon’ble ITAT and, thus, the order as passed by the Ld. CIT(A) deserves to be quashed.
3. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that no notice u/s 148 or notice u/s 142(1) was ever served upon the appellant and, as such, the appellant was prevented by sufficient and reasonable cause and not appearing before Ld. Assessing Officer.
4. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to admit the additional evidence as furnished before him and rejecting the submissions of the assessee for admission of additional evidence on surmises & conjectures.
5. Notwithstanding the above said grounds of appeal, the Ld. C!T(A) has erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 60 lacs on account of investment in the immovable property for which necessary sources have been explained and which evidence had not been admitted.
6. The C!T(A) has also erred in confirming the addition of Rs. 39,40,000/- on account of cash deposit in the bank account, for which, necessary evidences were furnished before the Ld. C!T(A) which were not admitted on surmises & conjectures.
7. That the Ld. C!T(A) has erred in not admitting the additional evidences as submitted before the Ld. C!T(A) on the basis of judgement of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Tek Ram reported in 357 !TR 133 and of Hon’ble Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Mukta Metal reported in 336 !TR 555.
8. That the appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off.
3. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Assessing Officer completed reassessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 on 09.12.2019, determining total income of Rs.39,40,000/-. The additions comprised (i) Rs.60,00,000/- towards alleged unexplained investment in land, and (ii) Rs.39,40,000/- towards unexplained cash deposits in bank.
3.1 The assessee, Late Sh. Lakha Singh, unfortunately expired on 17.01.2020. Thereafter, the appeal before the CIT(A) was filed by his legal heir through the Income Tax portal
4. Feeling aggrieved by the order passed by the Assessing Officer , the assessee preferred the appeal before the Ld. Ld. CIT(A) through the legal heirs. In appeal, legal and factual grounds were raised, including challenge to the validity of reassessment for non-service of notice u/s 148, validity of best judgment assessment, denial of natural justice, and challenge to additions on merits. The legal heir also sought to file additional evidence under Rule 46A, citing the advanced age and ill-health of the assessee which prevented proper compliance during assessment proceedings.
4.1 The Ld. CIT(A), despite being informed of the death of the assessee, passed the order in the name of the deceased.
4.2 On merits, the CIT(A) declined to admit the additional evidence, holding that the assessee had not shown sufficient cause within the framework of Rule 46A. Relying on judicial precedents such as CIT v. Manish Buildwell Pvt. Ltd. (Delhi HC) and ITO v. Fairdia Foundation (Cal HC), the CIT(A) observed that mere old age is not sufficient ground to allow evidence at appellate stage.. Consequently, the additions of Rs.60,00,000/- and Rs.39,40,000/- were confirmed.
5. Now the assessee is in appeal before us against the order passed by the Ld. Ld. CIT(A) on the ground mentioned above
6. The Ld. AR, appearing on behalf of the legal heir, submitted that the impugned order is void-ab-initio as it has been passed in the name of a deceased person, despite specific intimation of death. Reliance was placed on settled judicial precedents that such orders are unsustainable.
6.1 It was argued that the assessee was an octogenarian, suffering from prolonged illness, frequently hospitalized, and ultimately passed away during the pendency of proceedings. These circumstances constitute sufficient cause for non-production of evidence before the Assessing Officer.
6.2. The AR further contended that the CIT(A) erred in rejecting the additional evidence without even calling for a remand report from the Assessing Officer. The evidence, if admitted, would conclusively explain the sources of land investment and cash deposits, including sale proceeds of agricultural land.
6.3 It was also strongly urged that apart from factual additions, legal grounds such as non-service of notice u/s 148 and validity of reassessment proceedings were raised before the CIT(A), but these were not adjudicated at all. It was prayed that the matter be restored for fresh adjudication with directions to admit additional evidence and to decide the legal grounds.
7. Ld. DR supported the order of the CIT(A). It was argued that the assessee had ample opportunity during assessment proceedings but chose not to participate. It was further submitted that the appeal was preferred by the assessee in the name of the late Sh. Lakha Singh, however, the form 35 was verified by the legal hair of the Sh. Lakha Singh. It was submitted that there was no mistake on the part of the Ld. Ld. CIT(A) to pass the order of in the name of Sh. Lakha Singh .
7.1 The DR submitted that no documentary proof of hospitalisation or medical incapacity was placed on record. Hence, the CIT(A) was justified in rejecting the plea for admission of additional evidence under Rule 46A.
7.2 It was further contended that the assessment order was passed prior to the death of the assessee, and therefore valid in law. Reliance was placed on the reasoning of the CIT(A) that age or illness, by itself, cannot absolve an assessee of his statutory obligations, particularly when legal assistance could have been availed through family members or counsel.
8. We have considered the rival submissions advanced by both parties and have carefully examined the entire record.
8.1 First, the fact of death of the assessee on 17.01.2020 is undisputed. However, we are of the considered opinion that since the appeal before the CIT(A) itself was instituted in the name of Sh. Lakha Singh and not in the name of his legal heir, the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) cannot be held to be vitiated merely because it was passed in the name of the deceased. Assuming for a moment that the order of the CIT(A) were to be treated as erroneous for this reason, even in that eventuality the order of the Assessing Officer would remain undisturbed and would continue to operate against the assessee. Therefore, we do not find merit in the plea that the impugned order deserves to be struck down solely on this technical ground.
8.2 Secondly, as regards the admission of additional evidence, we find substance in the contention of the assessee/legal heir. The record shows that the assessee was of advanced age, suffering from prolonged ill health, and subsequently expired during the course of proceedings. These circumstances clearly establish sufficient cause for non-compliance before the Assessing Officer. In such a situation, the Ld. CIT(A) ought to have admitted the additional evidence in the interest of justice and, in any event, should have forwarded the same to the Assessing Officer for his comments by way of a remand report, as envisaged under Rule 46A(3) of the Income-tax Rules. The failure to do so has resulted in denial of an effective opportunity to the assessee/legal heir.
8.3 Further, we also note that the assessee had raised legal grounds touching upon the validity of the reassessment proceedings and the service of statutory notice. These legal grounds go to the very root of the assessment proceedings and therefore deserved a specific adjudication by the CIT(A). The failure to decide these legal issues has rendered the appellate order incomplete.
8.4 In these circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the matter requires to be restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) for fresh adjudication. The CIT(A) shall admit and consider the additional evidence filed by the assessee/legal heir, obtain a remand report from the Assessing Officer, and also adjudicate specifically on the legal grounds raised. Needless to add, adequate opportunity of hearing shall be provided to the legal heir before passing a speaking order. For abundant clarity, we may state that we have not expressed any opinion either on the merits of the additions or on the legal issues raised, which are left open for adjudication by the CIT(A).
9. In the result, appeal of the Assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the open Court on 22/09/2025
Author Bio
