SATYAM VISHINDAS MATREJA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE VISHINDAS JETHANAND MATREJA,AHMEDABAD vs. NFAC, DELHI PRESENT JURIS.- THE ITO, WARD-5(3)(2), AHMEDABAD

In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case of the appellant, the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act as confirmed by Ld. CIT(A) is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act and the consequential order passed by the AO u/s 147 r.w.s 144 r.w.s 1448 of the Act and upheld by the Ld. CIT(A) in - 2– the name and PAN of the deceased assessee ie., Late Shri Vishindas Jethanand Matreja" is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the notice issued u/s 148 of the Act by Juri ictional Assessing Officer is in violation of Section 151A of the Act and CBDT Notification No. 18/2022 dated 29.03.2022 which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the approval taken u/s 151 is mechanical approval and without verifying relevant material by PCIT which shows that there is no independent application of mind which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.

1 In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the approval obtained from Hon'ble PCIT, Ahmedabad-1 u/s 151 of Act is invalid which renders the entire proceedings bad in law.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO merely on the basis of data found from the premises of Manish Brahmbhatt, without any independent verification or enquiry is unjustified and liable to be deleted

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the initiation of reassessment proceedings merely on the basis of information flagged in the Insight Portal without any independent application of mind is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the order passed by the AO u/s 147 of the Act without any tangible material on record is bad in law and deserves to be quashed.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Id. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 26,66,666/ in the hands of the appellant on account of Unexplained Investment u/s 69 of the Act even when no such addition is called for.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 26,66,666/- in the hands of the appellant on the basis of digital data found from the premises of third party.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 26,66,666/- in the hands of the appellant in absence of any material pertaining to the appellant.

In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO the addition of Rs. 26,66,666/- in the hands of the appellant by placing reliance on the digital data without providing certificate u/s 65B(4) of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. 13. In law and in facts and circumstances of the case of appellant, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition made by the AO of Rs. 26,66,666/- in the hands of the appellant merely on the basis of presumptions and assumptions.

The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any of the grounds or ground either before or at the time of appeal hearing

The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed the return of income for the year under consideration under section 139(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 on 22.07.2019, declaring total income of Rs. 5,29,500/-. Subsequently, the case was reopened by initiating proceedings under sections 148A and 148 of the Act. Pursuant thereto, an order under section 148A(d) dated 24.04.2023 was passed after obtaining approval under section 151 of the Act, and notice under section 148 was issued on the same date. Thereafter, notices under section 142(1) of the Act were issued. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under section 147 read with sections 144 and 144B of the Act vide order dated 07.01.2025, determining the total income at Rs. 31,96,166/- after making an addition of Rs. 26,66,666/- under section 69 of the Act on account of unexplained investment.

Aggrieved by the assessment order, the assessee preferred an appeal before the Ld. CIT(A), who confirmed the action of the Assessing Officer.

Being further aggrieved, the assessee is now in appeal before the Tribunal.

The Ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the entire reassessment proceedings are void ab initio, as the notice issued under section 148A(b), the notice under section 148, and the consequential assessment order were issued in the name and PAN of Late Shri Vishindas Jethanand Matreja, despite the Assessing Officer having been informed of his demise during the course of the proceedings. It was contended that once the Assessing Officer had knowledge of the death of the assessee, the proceedings ought to have been initiated and continued against the legal heir in accordance with law. It was further submitted that the issuance of notices and passing of the assessment order in the name of a deceased person renders the entire reassessment proceedings invalid and liable to be quashed.

We have heard the rival submissions and perused the material available on record. Since the reassessment proceedings were completed in the name of a deceased person despite the Assessing Officer having knowledge of the assessee's death, we hold that the assessment order is void and liable to be quashed. Accordingly, Grounds Nos. 1 to 7 are allowed.

As the reassessment proceedings have been quashed, Grounds Nos. 8 to 13 on merits have become academic and, therefore, require no adjudication.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.

""थ"/ The Respondent. 3. संबंिधतआयकरआयु"/ Concerned CIT 4. आयकरआयु"(अपील) /The CIT(A)- 5. िवभागीय"ितिनिध, आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, अहमदाबाद/ DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड"फाईल /Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,सहायकपंजीकार (Dy./Asstt.