LATE RAMCHANDRA WAMAN KHAMBETE ,MUMBAI vs. I.T.O -42(3)(2), MUMBAI

PER OM PRAKASH KANT, AM This appeal has been preferred by the legal heir on behalf of the assessee against the order of the Ld. Commissioner of Income- tax (Appeals)-4 Kolkata [in short ‘the Ld. CIT(A)’] for assessment year 2014-15, raising following grounds:

IT(A) erred in confirming the action of g notice of reopening of assessment u/s sed person and completing the assessmen
IT(A) erred in confirming the action of L g Rs. 7,96,175/- u/s 56(2)(vii)(b) of the fference between stamp duty valuation ment value.
tional grounds have been filed reproduced as under:
ssment Order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147
12.2019 is without DIN Number and the nt order passed is bad in law.
ssment Order passed u/s. 144 r.w.s. 147
12.2019 is passed in the name of the d therefore is bad in law.
ground raised being purely lega gation of the fresh fact, same a of ratio laid down in decision se of NTPC reported in 229 ITR acts of the case are that the re essee on 18.06.2014 declaring return of income filed by the y assessment and statutory no 1 (in short ‘the Act’) were issue ment order passed u/s 143(3) o essing Officer made addition of credit u/s 68 of the Act and co al provisions of the Act. Subse ddition u/s 68 of the Act sho andra Waman Khambete
2
A No. 5754/MUM/2024
Ld AO of s 147 to a nt.
Ld. AO in act being n and the on behalf of the 7 of the Act erefore the 7 of the Act deceased al in nature and are admitted for n of the Hon’ble
383. eturn of income total income at e assessee was otices under the ed and complied of the Act dated
Rs.14,11,000/- omputed the tax equently, it was ould have been subjected to special after recording reaso a notice u/s 148 of th of the assessee and issued. In response submitted that the a had passed away on heir regarding demise to complete the ass making addition of heir of the assessee b
5. Before us, the additional ground c deceased person. Th our attention that no the deceased person passed by the AO on that the legal heir regarding death of th has passed the order bad-in-law. The AO assessee on record a should have been su the AO didn’t do the Late Ramcha
ITA rate of u/s 115BBE of the Act ns to believe that income escap he Act dated 05.03.2019 was iss d subsequent notices u/s 14
e to notices, the legal heir o assessee Shri Ramchandra Wa n 14.11.2018. Despite intimati e of the assessee, the Assessing sessment in the hands of the Rs.70.96,175/-. The appeal fil before the Ld. CIT(A) was also di
Ld. counsel for the assessee challenging the assessment or he Ld. counsel for the assessee ot only notice u/s 148 of the Ac n but the reassessment order n deceased person which is bad has also intimated to the As he assessee and despite then A r on non-existent person, which was required to bring the le and accordingly the estate of d ubject to reassessment through e same. Therefore, we quash th andra Waman Khambete
3
A No. 5754/MUM/2024
t and therefore, ped assessment, sued in the case
42(1) were also of the assessee aman Khambete ion by the legal g Officer went on e assessee after led by the legal smissed.
referred to the rder passed on has brought to ct was issued on has also been in law. The fact ssessing Officer
Assessing Officer h is invalid and egal heir of the deceased person h legal heir, but, he reassessment proceedings in the c becomes infructuous
6. In the result, th
Order pronoun (RAHUL CHA
JUDICIAL M
Mumbai;
Dated: 04/04/2025
Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S.

Copy of the Order forward
1. The Appellant
2. The Respondent.
3. CIT
4. DR, ITAT, Mumbai
5. Guard file.

////

Late Ramcha
ITA case of the assessee. Thus, the .
he appeal of the assessee stands ced in the open Court on 04/0
d/- AUDHARY)
(OM PRAK
MEMBER
ACCOUNTA ded to :

BY ORDER

(Assistant Re

ITAT, Mu andra Waman Khambete
4
A No. 5754/MUM/2024
present appeal allowed.
04/2025. /-
KASH KANT)
ANT MEMBER
R, gistrar) umbai