Case Law Details
Javed Karimkhan Patel Vs ITO (ITAT Pune)
Introduction: In a significant ruling, the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal (ITAT) Pune tackled the issue of representation of a deceased assessee in income tax proceedings. The case, titled “Javed Karimkhan Patel vs. ITO,” raised questions about the eligibility of the deceased assessee’s son to act as the “legal representative” for tax matters. The ITAT’s decision highlights the specific criteria that must be met for an individual to qualify as a legal representative in such proceedings.
Detailed Analysis:
Background of the Case: The appeal in question pertains to the assessment year 2009-10 and is directed against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) – 2, Aurangabad. This order, dated 07/09/2015, was issued in response to proceedings under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (referred to as “the Act”).
Key Aspects of the Case:
1. Deceased Assessee: The appellant in this case, Lt. Karim Khan Shahnoorkhan Patel, filed the appeal on 29.02.2015. However, it was revealed during the proceedings that the appellant had passed away on 04.06.2021.
2. Son’s Petition: Mr. Javed Karim Khan Patel, the son of the deceased assessee, submitted a petition expressing his intention to pursue his deceased father’s case against the actions of both the lower authorities. These actions had resulted in the imposition of a penalty amounting to Rs. 29,85,790 under Section 271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Legal Representative Status: The primary issue before the ITAT was whether Mr. Javed Karim Khan Patel met the criteria to be considered the “legal representative” of the deceased assessee, thus granting him the right to pursue the appeal on his father’s behalf.
4. Legal Definitions: The ITAT considered the legal definitions pertinent to this case, particularly Section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. This section defines a “legal representative” as a person who, in law, represents the estate of a deceased individual. It also includes anyone who intermeddles with the deceased’s estate and, in cases where a party sues or is sued in a representative capacity, the person on whom the estate devolves upon the death of the party.
Court’s Decision: The ITAT Pune carefully examined the definitions and requirements laid out in the law. The tribunal found that Mr. Javed Karim Khan Patel, the son of the deceased assessee, did not inherit or succeed to the estate of the deceased. Consequently, he did not fulfill the crucial condition specified in the legal definition of a “legal representative.”
The ITAT’s decision aligns with the principle established in the case of Shri V.V. Ramarao Naidu vs. CIT, [1961] 42 ITR 80(AP), which emphasized the necessity of representing the deceased person’s estate to qualify as a legal representative. As Mr. Javed Karim Khan Patel did not meet this criterion, his petition to be recognized as the “legal representative” was rejected.
Conclusion: The ITAT Pune’s ruling in the case of Javed Karimkhan Patel vs. ITO underscores the importance of adhering to specific legal criteria to be considered a “legal representative” in income tax proceedings. In this instance, the deceased assessee’s son was unable to fulfill the requirement of succeeding to his father’s estate. While this appeal was dismissed, the door remains open for the legal representative(s), if any, to pursue it within the bounds of the law. This decision serves as a reminder of the precise legal definitions and conditions that must be met when representing a deceased individual in tax proceedings.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT PUNE
1. This assessee’s appeal for A.Y. 2009-10, is directed against the CIT(A)- 2, Aurangabad’s order dated 07/09/2015 passed in case No.ABD/CIT(A)- 2/224/14-15, involving proceeding u/s. 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 ; in short “the Act”.
Heard both the parties at the length. Case file perused.
2. It emerges during the course of hearing that the assessee/appellant herein Lt. Karim Khan Shahnoorkhan Patel; who had filed the instant appeal way back on 29.02.2015, has left for his heavenly abode on 04.06.2021. We are informed that one Mr. Javed Karim Khan Patel has filed his petition seeking to pursue his deceased father’s file preferred against the both the learned lower authorities’ action imposing penalty of Rs.29,85,790/- u/s.271(1)(c) of the Act.
3. Learned Counsel invited our attention to tribunal’s detailed order in file noting dt. 30.05.2023 seeking the Assessing Officer’s verification report dated 08.2023 wherein the latter has refused to accept Shri Javed Khan Patel’s status as the “legal representative” of the deceased assessee. Mr. Shingte’s case before us is that the application of Shri. Javed Karimkhan Patel deserves to be accepted as the deceased assessee’s “legal representative” so as to pursue the instant appeal on behalf of his father.
4. We sought to know from learned counsel as to whether this applicant has succeeded to deceased assessee’s estate or not. The reply received from the applicant’s side through his learned counsel is in negative only. That being the case, we are of the considered opinion that the section 159 dealing with liability of a “legal representative” deserves to be read in conjunction with section 2(29) of the Act defining such a representative; thereby adopting the corresponding definition, in section 2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908. We deem it appropriate to reproduce the definition of a “legal representative” defined in Sec.2(11) of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908 as under.
“ ‘legal representative’ 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 is sued in representative character the person on whom the estate devolves on the death of the party so suing or sued;”
5. It is thus clear that legislature has prescribed specific conditions for an applicant that he or she represents the estate of the deceased person; as the case may be we thus conclude that since the appellant has failed to satisfy the above clinching criterion his instant petition seeking his impleadment as the “legal representative” fails as per Shri V.V. Ramarao Naidu Vs. CIT, [1961] 42 ITR 80(AP). Ordered accordingly. This assessee’s appeal also fails as this necessary corollary with a rider with it shall very much open for his legal representative(s); if any to pursue the same as per law.
6. This assessee’s appeal is dismissed in above terms.
Order pronounced in the Open Court on this 31st day of August, 2023.
