Case Law Details
Jacinta Panicker Vs ITO (ITAT Bangalore)
The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Bangalore recently allowed an appeal in a case where the assessee, Jacinta Panicker, had passed away during appellate proceedings. The original order, issued by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, was inadvertently passed in the name of the deceased individual. The assessee’s Authorized Representative (AR) argued that this order was legally invalid and requested the matter be remanded to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) for fresh adjudication, this time in the name of the legal heir. Additional grounds of appeal were also submitted.
The AR also pointed out that a crucial document, a sale deed, had been filed with the CIT(A) but was not considered during the appellate proceedings. The AR requested that the case be sent back to the CIT(A) for a fresh hearing, taking into account both the legal aspects of the case and this additional piece of evidence. The Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to the remand.
The ITAT, after reviewing the submissions and the record, acknowledged the irregularity of the order being issued in the name of a deceased person. While recognizing the responsibility of the assessee or their legal representative to inform the CIT(A) of the demise, the ITAT, emphasizing the principles of justice and fairness, decided to remand the case. The tribunal directed the CIT(A) to conduct a fresh adjudication in accordance with the law, now recognizing the legal heir as the proper party.
Furthermore, the ITAT, acting under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, admitted the previously unconsidered sale deed as additional evidence. Recognizing its importance to the case, the ITAT directed the CIT(A) to specifically consider this document during the new hearing. The appeal was accordingly allowed for statistical purposes, setting the stage for a new adjudication process at the CIT(A) level.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT BANGALORE
This appeal has been filed by the revenue against the order passed by the NFAC, Delhi, dated 29/07/2024, vide DIN No. ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2024-25/1067107398(1), for the assessment year 2017-18.
2. In this case, the assessee passed away while pursuing the appeal before the learned CIT(A) on 12/05/2024. However, the appellate order was issued in the name of the deceased person on 29/07/2024. It was submitted by the ld. AR that this order is legally invalid as it was framed in the name of a deceased individual. Consequently, the learned Authorized Representative (AR) submitted that the matter should be remanded to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in the name of the legal heir of the deceased. Additional grounds of appeal were also submitted to this effect.
3. On the merit of the case, the learned AR submitted that an additional document, a sale deed placed on pages 8 to 19 of the paper book, was filed before the learned CIT(A). However, this document was not considered during the appellate proceedings. Accordingly, the learned AR requested that the matter be set aside to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in light of the provisions of law and the additional document on record.
4. On the other hand, the learned Departmental Representative (DR) did not object to remanding the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication as per the law.
5. After careful consideration of the submissions made by both parties and a review of the relevant materials on record, it is evident that the order issued by the learned CIT(A) was framed in the name of the deceased person. However, it was the responsibility of the assessee or their legal representative to notify the learned CIT(A) of the assessee’s demise and request the inclusion of the legal heir in the proceedings, which was not done. Nevertheless, in the interest of justice and fairness, especially given the special circumstances of the assessee’s demise, we are inclined to remand the matter to the learned CIT(A) for fresh adjudication in accordance with the law.
6. Furthermore, the additional document filed by the assessee during the appellate proceedings—the sale deed—was not considered, although it appears to be crucial for resolving the issue. Accordingly, under Rule 29 of the Income Tax Appellate Rules, we admit this document for advancing substantial justice to the parties’ concern and direct the learned CIT(A) to reconsider the issue in light of this additional evidence. Hence, the assessee’s appeal is allowed for statistical purposes.
7. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced in the court on the 16th day of December 2024.
Author Bio
