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
