LATE YOGENDRA RAY THROUGH LR PAVAN KUMAR,VAISHALI V. ITO WARD 1(3) VAISHALI, VAISHALI

ITA 251/PAT/2024

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by the legal representatives of Late Yogendra Ray against the order of the CIT(A), which was passed ex parte after the death of the assessee. The appeal was related to the assessment year 2017-18 and contested various grounds including the unjustness of the CIT(A)'s order, failure to consider submissions, and errors in not admitting the appeal due to non-payment of advance tax. The tribunal noted the absence of representation for the assessee post his death and the lack of impleadment of his legal representatives by the CIT(A). Consequently, the tribunal decided to set aside the CIT(A)'s order and remand the case for a fresh hearing.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 32395 (ITAT-PATNA)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-02-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Partly Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Assessment Year: 2017-2018
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Partly Allowed
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Set aside; Business income
• Section: 250

Judgement Text

"IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA “SMC” BENCH, VIRTUAL HEARING AT KOLKATA Before SRI SANJAY GARG, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 251/PAT/2024 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Late Yogendra Ray ………….. Appellant Through LR Pavan Kumar Vill. Vakhri Doa, P.O. Vakhri Doa, Hajipur, Vaishali, Bihar-844122. (PAN: BRLPR3024A) Vs. ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali .............. Respondent Appearances: Appellant represented by: Shri Nishant Maitin, CA Respondent represented by: Shri Ashwani Kumar, Sr. DR Date of concluding the hearing : 10.02.2025 Date of pronouncing the order : 10.02.2025 ORDER The captioned appeal has been preferred by the assessee against the order dated 18.12.2023 of the Ld. Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeal), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [hereinafter referred to as Ld. ‘CIT(A)’] u/s. 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) for Assessment Year (AY) 2017-18. 2. The assessee in this appeal has taken following grounds of appeal: “1. The order passed by Ld. CIT(A), NFAC is unjust, unwarranted and bad in law. 2. Ld. CIT(A), NFAC failed to appreciate and/or overlooked and/or did not consider the submissions made by the appellant as also other facts of the case. 3. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in holding that the appellant did not make mandatory payment of amount equal to amount of advance tax and as such the appeal was not eligible for admission. 4. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not appreciating the fact that the appellant, being senior citizen enjoyed the higher threshold limit for payment of taxes, if any. I.T.A. No.: 251/PAT/2024 Late Yogendra Ray, AY : 2017-18 Page 2 of 3 5. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not affording fair opportunity to the appellant to explain the reasons for non- deposit of any tax. 6. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the addition of Rs.12,98,500/- being the amount deposited in bank accounts of the appellant on the ground that the appellant failed to establish source and nature of cash deposits made in old currency. 7. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC erred in not adjudicating the addition of Rs.2,82,461/- being the amount determining as business income of the appellant from trading activities. 8. The appellant craves leave to add, amend, rectify, modify or otherwise alter any ground of appeal.” 3. At the outset, the Ld. Counsel for the assessee has submitted that the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is an ex parte order. It is submitted that during the pendency of the appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee who was an old aged person, got severe sickness and he ultimately passed away on 19.04.2022. Further, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is dated 18.12.2023 i.e. after the death of the appellant/assessee. No one prosecuted the matter on behalf of the assessee after his death resulting into the aforesaid ex parte order. Even legal representative of the assessee has not been impleaded by the ld. CIT(A). However, coming into the knowledge of the passing of the order of the Ld. CIT(A), the present appeal has been preferred through the legal heirs of the assessee. 4. Considering the above submissions of the Ld. Counsel for the assessee/LR of the assessee, the impugned order of the Ld. CIT(A) is set aside. The matter is restored to the file of the Ld. CIT(A) with a direction to decide the same afresh on merits after giving proper opportunity of hearing to the assessee/LR of the assessee. Appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. 5. In the result, the appeal of the assessee is treated as allowed for statistical purposes. Order pronounced in the open Court. Sd/- [Sanjay Garg] Dated: 10.02.2025 Judicial Member I.T.A. No.: 251/PAT/2024 Late Yogendra Ray, AY : 2017-18 Page 3 of 3 Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Appellant : Late Yogendra Ray through LR Pavan Kumar 2. Respondent : ITO, Ward-1(3), Vaishali 3. CIT(A), NFAC, Delhi 4. CIT 5. DR, ITAT, Patna Bench, Patna. 6. Guard File. //True copy // By order Assistant Registrar ITAT, Patna Benches Patna "