BHARAT KUMAR VELUSAMY,KARUR V. ITO, WARD-1, KARUR

ITA 2055/CHNY/2025

AI Insights

The case involves appeals by Bharat Kumar Velusamy, the legal heir of K. Velusamy, against the orders of the CIT(A) for the assessment years 2012-13 and 2013-14. The appeals were initially filed late, attributed to the legal heir's unawareness of the proceedings, as the deceased did not disclose them. The Tribunal found that the orders were passed without hearing the legal heir, leading to a violation of natural justice. Consequently, the Tribunal remanded the case back to the CIT(A) for a comprehensive hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 792480 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 4 month(s) 9 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 04-12-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: C
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 25-07-2025
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: R. ANITHA
• Assessee Lawyers: T. BANUSEKAR; H. YESHWANTH KUMAR
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice

Judgement Text

"आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, ’सी’ \u0001यायपीठ, चे ई। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ‘C’ BENCH: CHENNAI \u0001ी एबी टी. वक , ाियक सद\u0011 एवं एवं एवं एवं \u0001ी जगदीश, लेखा सद क े सम\u0015 BEFORE SHRI ABY T. VARKEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI JAGADISH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER आयकर अपील सं./ITA Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2025 िनधा\u000eरणवष\u000e/Assessment Years: 2012-13 & 2013-14 Bharat Kumar Velusamy, (Legal heir of K. Velusamy), No.242-A, Kongu Nagar 1st Street, South Gandhigramam, Sanapirati, Karur-639 004. v. The ITO, Ward-1, Karur. [PAN: ALRPV 3579 P] (अपीलाथ\u0016/Appellant) (\u0017\u0018यथ\u0016/Respondent) अपीलाथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से/ Appellant by : Mr.T. Banusekar, Advocate & Mr.H. Yeshwanth Kumar, Advocate \u0017\u0018यथ\u0016 क\u001a ओर से /Respondent by : Ms.R. Anitha, Addl.CIT सुनवाईक\u001aतारीख/Date of Hearing : 06.11.2025 घोषणाक\u001aतारीख /Date of Pronouncement : 04.12.2025 आदेश / O R D E R PER ABY T. VARKEY, JM: 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. Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Bharat Kumar Velusamy :: 2 :: 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 notice Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Bharat Kumar Velusamy :: 3 :: that 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. Sd/- (जगदीश) (JAGADISH) लेखा सद /ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Sd/- (एबी टी. वक ) (ABY T. VARKEY) \u0001याियक सद\bय/JUDICIAL MEMBER चे ई/Chennai, !दनांक/Dated: 04th December, 2025. TLN Printed from counselvise.com ITA Nos.2055 & 2056/Chny/2025 (AYs 2012-13 & 2013-14) Bharat Kumar Velusamy :: 4 :: आदेश क\u001a \u0017ितिलिप अ$ेिषत/Copy to: 1. अपीलाथ\u0010/Appellant 2. \u0011\u0012थ\u0010/Respondent 3. आयकरआयु\u0018/CIT, Chennai / Madurai / Salem / Coimbatore. 4. िवभागीय\u0011ितिनिध/DR 5. गाड फाईल/GF Printed from counselvise.com "