PRAMILA DEVI L/H LATE RAM NATH CHAUDHARY,MUZAFFARPUR vs. ITO, WARD-1(2), MUZAFFARPUR

आयकर अपीलीय अधिकरण पटना पीठ, कोलकाता में IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PATNA BENCH AT KOLKATA [वर्चुअल कोटु] [Virtual Court] श्री राजेश कचमार, लेखा सदस्य एवं श्री प्रदीप कचमार र्ौबे, न्याधयक सदस्य के समक्ष Before SRI RAJESH KUMAR, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & PRADIP KUMAR CHOUBEY, JUDICIAL MEMBER I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramila Devi, L/H Late Ram Nath Chaudhary………………………Appellant [PAN: ALWPC 2285 Q] Vs. ITO, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarpur.…………………..……………………..Respondent Appearances: Assessee represented by: Sanjeev Kr. Anwar, Adv. Department represented by: Ashwani Kr. Singal, JCIT. Date of concluding the hearing : August 1st, 2024 Date of pronouncing the order : September 25th, 2024 ORDER Per Pradip Kumar Choubey, Judicial Member: The instant appeal filed by the assessee pertaining to the Assessment Year (in short ‘AY’) 2017-18 is directed against the order passed u/s 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the ‘Act’) by ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeal)-NFAC, Delhi [in short ld. ‘CIT(A)’] dated 25.07.2023 arising out of the assessment order framed u/s 144 of the Act dated 30.11.2019.

I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramila Devi, L/H Late Ram Nath Chaudhary. 1.1. The brief facts of the case of the appellant are that the assessee is the legal heir of Late Ramnath Chaudhary who was the proprietor of business of running a petrol pump of Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Ltd. As per the assessment order assessee (Late Ramnath Chaudhary) is the non-filer and Department was in possession of an information about huge cash transaction of Rs. 81,97,910/-. It is also in the assessment order that assessee has failed to furnish return of income and accordingly assessment order was passed by assessing income at Rs. 15,51,810/-. The said order was challenged by the legal representative of the assessee (Late Ramnath Chaudhary) but the same has been dismissed. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order, the present appeal has been preferred. 1.2. Ld. Counsel for the assessee challenges the impugned order thereby submitting that the assessment order has been passed against a dead person and it was in the notice of the Assessing Officer (hereinafter referred to as ld. 'AO') as well as ld. CIT(A) but in spite of that assessment order was passed against the dead person i.e. ab initio void. Ld. Counsel for the assessee further submits that the appellant being the legal heir of the deceased, informed that Late Ramnath Chaudhary has expired and necessary evidence as such death certificate has also been filed. 2. We have perused the order of the ld. AO and also perused the order of the ld. CIT(A) and find that it is not in dispute that Ramnath Chaudhary had already died and we further find that assessment order was passed against Late Ramnath Chaudhary as well as ld. CIT(A) has also passed an order against Late Ramnath Chaudhary though it was in the notice that Ramnath Chaudhary is no more in the world. 2.1. Keeping in view the above facts that the assessment order as well as the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is against a dead person i.e. ab initio void. Accordingly, the assessment order as well as the impugned order in which ld. CIT(A) has confirmed the order of the AO is set aside.

Page 2 of 3

I.T.A. No.: 281/PAT/2023 Assessment Year: 2017-18 Pramila Devi, L/H Late Ram Nath Chaudhary. 3. In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25th September, 2024. Sd/- Sd/- [Rajesh Kumar] [Pradip Kumar Choubey] Accountant Member Judicial Member Dated: 25.09.2024 Bidhan (P.S.) Copy of the order forwarded to: 1. Pramila Devi, L/H Late Ram Nath Chaudhary, C/o Gungun Sari, Gandhi Nagar, Main Road, Koluha, Paigambarpur, Bairiya, Muzaffarpur, Bihar, 843108. 2. ITO, Ward-1(2), Muzaffarpur. 3. CIT(A)-NFAC, Delhi. 4. CIT- 5. CIT(DR), Patna Bench, Patna.

//True copy // By order

Assistant Registrar ITAT, Kolkata Benches Kolkata

Page 3 of 3