2020 (5) TMI 377 - AT - Income Tax

Order passed in the name of a dead person - legal heirs of the deceased - proceedings against the legal representatives - HELD THAT - Assessee in the case of a deceased person will be the person who are regarded as the legal heirs of the deceased as they can be regarded as a human being. In view of this, a person who has already expired cannot be regarded to be a human being as on the date when the order was passed. Only the legal heirs can be regarded as assessee in view of the provisions of section 2(7) of the I.T.Act. Section 159 also emphasizes that the order passed in the name of a dead person, is not a valid order. Accordingly,set aside the order of the CIT(A), which is passed in the name of a dead person, and direct him to bring on record the name of legal heir and decide the issue afresh after affording a reasonable opportunity of being heard to the assessee (legal heir). Appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.

Issues Involved:
1. Validity of appellate order passed in the name of a deceased appellant.
2. Addition of &8377; 5,87,801 in respect of Sundry Creditors.
3. Addition of &8377; 16,78,500 being alleged cash deposits.
4. Legal representation of a deceased individual in tax matters.

Issue 1: Validity of Appellate Order Passed in the Name of a Deceased Appellant:
The appeal challenged the order of the CIT(A) dated 27.09.2019, contending that the appellant had passed away before the order was issued. The appellant's representative had notified the CIT(A) of the appellant's demise through letters dated 08.06.2018 and 15.05.2019. Despite this, the CIT(A) upheld the order in the name of the deceased appellant. The Tribunal noted that the order was passed in the name of an individual who had already expired, which raised concerns about the validity of the order. The Tribunal referred to the provisions of section 2(7) of the Income Tax Act, emphasizing that legal representatives of a deceased person are deemed to be the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the inclusion of legal heirs as the assessee for further proceedings.

Issue 2: Addition of &8377; 5,87,801 in Respect of Sundry Creditors:
The Assessing Officer added &8377; 5,87,801 to the total income of the assessee due to non-furnishing of confirmation from sundry creditors. The CIT(A) upheld this addition, stating that the appellant failed to provide proper confirmation for the entire amount. The appellant had submitted statements from two creditors but they were deemed insufficient as they lacked essential details. The Tribunal observed that the appellant could not substantiate or provide further evidence during the appeal proceedings. Consequently, the addition made by the Assessing Officer was upheld by the CIT(A).

Issue 3: Addition of &8377; 16,78,500 Alleged Cash Deposits:
The Assessing Officer added &8377; 16,78,500 as unexplained cash credit based on cash deposits made in the appellant's savings bank account. The appellant claimed that the cash deposits were explained through bank statements, showing withdrawals from the same account. However, the appellant failed to provide details or explanations for the cash deposits, both during the assessment and appeal proceedings. The CIT(A) upheld the addition, stating that the appellant could not substantiate the source of the cash deposits. Consequently, the Tribunal refrained from adjudicating this issue further due to setting aside the CIT(A) order on the legal representation matter.

Issue 4: Legal Representation of a Deceased Individual in Tax Matters:
The Tribunal highlighted the importance of legal representation in tax matters, especially when dealing with deceased individuals. Section 159 of the Income Tax Act establishes that legal representatives are liable to pay any sum the deceased would have been liable to pay. The Tribunal emphasized that an order passed in the name of a deceased person is not valid, and legal heirs must be recognized as the assessee. Therefore, the Tribunal set aside the CIT(A) order and directed the inclusion of legal heirs for proper representation and decision-making in the case.

In conclusion, the Tribunal partly allowed the appeal for statistical purposes, primarily due to setting aside the CIT(A) order on the grounds of legal representation of a deceased individual. The judgment underscored the significance of proper legal representation in tax matters and the necessity to include legal heirs for valid proceedings.

← Previous Next →