Clipped from: https://taxguru.in/income-tax/cit-a-passed-order-assessee-s-death-violation-natural-justice-matter-remanded-fresh-hearing.html
Bharat Kumar Velusamy Vs ITO (ITAT Chennai)
CIT(A) Passed Order After Assessee’s Death—Violation of Natural Justice; Matter Remanded for Fresh Hearing
Legal heir filed appeals challenging CIT(A)’s orders dated 30.09.2024. Appeals were delayed by 237 days. Legal heir explained that the deceased assessee never informed him about ongoing assessment/appellate proceedings, & assessee had died on 13.06.2023—well before CIT(A) passed orders in 2024. Tribunal accepted this explanation & condoned delay.
On merits, Tribunal found that CIT(A) passed orders without hearing the assessee, who had already passed away more than a year earlier. This constituted clear violation of natural justice. Therefore, regardless of additions made in reassessment orders u/s 143(3)/147 for AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14, CIT(A)’s orders could not stand.
Tribunal accordingly set aside CIT(A)’s orders & restored both appeals to CIT(A) for fresh adjudication after giving the legal heir proper opportunity, as required u/s 250(6). Legal heir was directed to produce all relevant documents.
Appeals allowed for statistical purposes.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT CHENNAI
These are appeals preferred by the legal heir of assessee [Shri K. Velusamy] against the orders of the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), (hereinafter referred to as “the Ld.CIT(A)”), Chennai-18, both dated 30.09.2024 for the Assessment Years (hereinafter referred to as “AY”) 2012-13 & 2013-14.
2. At the outset, it is noted that the appeals have been filed belatedly by ‘237’ days. The legal heir representing the late assessee pleads for condoning the delay on the ground that he was not aware of the impugned orders passed by the Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.09.2024 since his father Shri K. Velusamy (assessee) while he was alive didn’t disclose about the assessment proceedings/appellate proceedings going on against him. And while the First Appellate proceedings was going on, the assessee passed away on 13.06.2023 (copy of death certificate filed before us); and thus, asserted before us that the legal heir was totally in the dark about the existence of the impugned order. Considering the aforesaid facts, which couldn’t be controverted, we condone the delay and proceed to hear the grounds of appeal raised by the legal heir of the assessee against the action of the Ld.CIT(A).
3. At the outset, Ld.AR of the assessee pointed out that the AO had passed the assessment order on 16.12.2019 for AY 2012-13 and had passed the assessment order for AY 2013-14 on 17.12.2019 u/s.143(3)/147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”) and the assessee had filed the appeals before the Ld.CIT(A)- 18; and when the appellate proceedings were going on, the assessee passed away on 13.06.2023 [which fact is corroborated by the Death Certificate issued by the Department of the Revenue Administrative, Government of Tamil Nadu]. Therefore, the Ld.AR brought to our noticethat the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) dated 30.09.2024 was without hearing the assessee. The said assertion made by the Ld.AR needs to be believed, since he passed away way back on 13.06.2023, whereas the impugned order was passed on 30.09.2024. In such a scenario, since there is a violation of natural justice, we set aside the impugned orders of the Ld.CIT(A) and restore the appeals back to his file with a direction to hear the legal heir and pass speaking order on the grounds of appeal raised by the assessee as mandated in sub-section (6) of Section 250 of the Act. The legal-heir of assessee is directed to file relevant documents to substantiate the claim made in the grounds of appeal, without fail and the Ld.CIT(A) to pass order in accordance to law after hearing the legal heir/assessee.
4. In the result, appeals filed by the assessee are allowed for statistical purposes.
Order pronounced on the 04th day of December, 2025, in Chennai.
aniltikotekar4sme.com 