The case ITA No. 5293/DEL/2019 involves appellant Prashant Kumar Singh from Bulandshahr, contesting against the Income Tax Officer, Ward-3(3), Bulandshahr for the assessment year 2010-11. This appeal was filed on June 10, 2019, against the order passed by the CIT(A) Ghaziabad on March 29, 2019.
The appellant filed the appeal on the grounds that the Assessing Officer (AO) wrongly considered cash deposits and the sale of ancestral agricultural land as income. Specifically, Singh argued that the cash deposits were proceeds from the sale of ancestral agricultural land, which is not subject to capital gains tax, contrary to the AO’s assessment.
The tribunal hearing was held on January 31, 2023. It was noted that Prashant Kumar Singh had passed away on May 5, 2021, and no legal heir had been brought on record. Notices sent to the appellant’s address were returned with remarks indicating the recipient’s death. The Department’s representative, Shri Vivek Vardhan, was present, but there was no representation for the appellant.
The tribunal, consisting of Accountant Member N.K. Billaiya and Judicial Member Ms. Astha Chandra, decided to dismiss the appeal due to procedural defects and the absence of any legal heir to pursue the case. The tribunal stated that the appeal could be reinstated if the procedural defects were rectified and a legal heir was brought on record.
This case highlights the importance of procedural compliance and timely representation in tax appeals. The dismissal of the appeal due to the appellant’s death and lack of legal heir representation serves as a cautionary tale for ensuring that all procedural requirements are met to avoid such dismissals.
Manage the increasing number of hearings effortlessly by leveraging the legal AI revolution We are India's Leading revolutionary AI-powered legal platform where you can get enough insights into top cases and judgements.
Research Platform