Mrs. Sajeena Ibrahim Kaleel Vs. ITO

Parties Involved

Facts Summary

The assessee, Mrs. Sajeena Ibrahim Kaleel, filed her return of income on 7.12.2018 declaring an income of Rs.2,76,680/-. Her case was selected for scrutiny due to substantial cash deposits during the demonetization period. The Assessing Officer (AO) issued a questionnaire asking for details of the cash deposits, to which the assessee responded. However, the AO was dissatisfied with the response and added the entire cash deposits under section 69A of the Income Tax Act, 1961. Aggrieved by this order, the assessee appealed to the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) (CIT(A)) on 11.3.2020. Due to the assessee's serious illness, no one appeared before the CIT(A), leading to the dismissal of the appeal ex-parte. The assessee expired on 8.1.2023 during the pendency of the appeal before the CIT(A). The order of the CIT(A) was passed on 27.3.2024, well after the assessee's death.…

Legal Issues

• 1. Whether the delay of 93 days in filing the appeal is condonable?
• 2. Whether the appeal should be remitted back to the CIT(A) for fresh adjudication given the assessee's death during the pendency of the appeal?

Judgment Outcome

Decided in favour of Assessee.

Similar Judgements

• Subodh Adhikary vs. ITO Ward 51(1), Kolkata

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2015-16Allowed

• Mrs. Marguerite Lasusa Chawla Vs ACIT, International Taxation

  Delhi Bench ‘D’, New Delhi benchAY 2018-19Allowed

• Shri Anitha Kumari Mehta Vs. DC/AC, Circle, Gaya

  Patna Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Prashant Gupta Legal Heir of Late Surendra Kumar Gupta vs. ITO, Ward-4(2)(2), Farrukhabad

  Agra bench

• MANISHA AGGARWAL VS. ITO, WARD 70(3), NEW DELHI

  DELHI BENCH benchAY 2017-18Allowed

• Usha Patodia Vs. ITO, Ward 30(1)

  Kolkata Bench benchAY 2017-18Allowed