2018 (6) TMI 1332 - AT - Wealth-tax

Non appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) - legitimate reason for non-appearance - Held that - Shri Fazal Muhhammad Ibrahim Khan had died during the pendency of appeal before the First Appellate Authority. The assessee/appellant is legal heir of Shri Fazal Muhhammad Ibrahim Khan and is now representing the deceased. On account of death of Shri Fazal Muhhammad Ibrahim Khan, the assessee could not appear in the other appeal as well before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). In view of the statement made by ld. AR we are of considered opinion that there was legitimate reason for non-appearance of assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals). Without going into the merits of the appeals, we are restoring these appeals to the file of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to decide the grounds afresh after considering the orders of Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) in assessee s case for assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and 2005-06.

Issues Involved:
Appeals against wealth tax assessments for the deceased original assessees, legal representation of heirs, ex-parte orders by Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), classification of urban agricultural land as an asset, discrepancies in land survey numbers, legitimate reasons for non-appearance before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), restoration of appeals for fresh consideration.

Analysis:

1. Legal Representation of Heirs:
The appeals were filed by the present assessee as the legal heir of the deceased original assessees, Fazal Muhammad Ibrahim Khan and Smt. Husainin Begum Mohammad Ibrahim Khan. The substitution of the names of the present assessee/appellant for the deceased original assessees was done due to their demise during the assessment or appellate proceedings.

2. Ex-Parte Orders and Non-Appearance:
The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) had passed ex-parte orders confirming additions made by the Assessing Officer in relation to urban agricultural land. The legal representative of the deceased assessees contended that due to the death of the original assessees, they could not appear before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to represent their cases, leading to the ex-parte orders.

3. Classification of Urban Agricultural Land:
The Assessing Officer had considered the urban agricultural land owned by the assessee as an asset under section 2(e)(a) of the Wealth Tax Act. However, in earlier assessment years, the Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Appeals) had ruled in favor of the assessee regarding the classification of the same land, as evidenced by orders from previous assessment years.

4. Discrepancies and Restoration of Appeals:
There were discrepancies noted in the assessment order regarding the survey number of the land in question. The Tribunal acknowledged the legitimate reasons for the non-appearance of the assessee before the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) due to the death of the original assessees. Consequently, the Tribunal decided to restore the appeals to the file of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for fresh consideration, emphasizing the need for a fair hearing and consideration of past orders.

5. Decision and Conclusion:
After considering the submissions and circumstances, the Tribunal allowed both appeals for statistical purposes, directing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) to re-examine the grounds and provide a reasonable opportunity for the assessee to present their case. The decision aimed to ensure a fair process and adherence to legal procedures in the assessment of wealth tax liabilities.

This detailed analysis encapsulates the key issues and outcomes of the judgment, providing a comprehensive understanding of the legal proceedings and decisions made by the Appellate Tribunal.

← Previous Next →