ACIT, CIRCLE-33(1), NEW DELHI vs. ANAR SINGH THR.L/H SH. MOHIT & OTHERS, NEW DELHI

This appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order dated 12/12/2017 passed by CIT(A)-11, New Delhi for assessment year 2012-13.

The grounds of appeal are as under:- “Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in adjudicating the assessment order passed by the AO as null & void. The facts and circumstances of the case laws referred by the Ld. CIT(A) are different in the manner that in the case laws quoted by the Ld. CIT(A), the assessee had already deceased before the initiation of the assessment proceedings. However, in the present case, the assessee had expired after the initiation of the assessment proceedings and the notice u/s 143(2) of the Act was served?

The assessee filed return of income on 11/12/2013 at a total income of Rs. 60,75,320/-. The case was selected for scrutiny under CASS and notice u/s 143 (2) of the Act was issued on 9/9/2014. Subsequently, the Assessing Officer issued various notices u/s 143 (2) and 143(1) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 on various dates and there was no compliance to these notices. On hearing dated 24/02/2016, the Ld. AR intimated the Assessing Officer that the assessee had committed suicide on 16/11/2014 and none of his family members known about any of his activities. The Assessing Officer issued a notice u/s 144 of the Act proposing to make various additions in respect of unsecured loans, Sundry Creditors and disallowance of various expenses. As there was no response to this notice the Assessing Officer finalized the assessment u/s 144 of the Act on 28/03/2016 thereby making various additions and computed the income at Rs.4,88,10,810/-. The assessment order was passed in the name of the assessee who has died on 16/11/2014.

Being aggrieved by the assessment order, the legal heirs of the assessee filed appeal before the CIT (A). The CIT (A) allowed the appeal of the assessee.

At the time of hearing, none appeared on behalf of the assessee (legal heirs of the assessee). Therefore, we are taking the submissions of the legal heirs of the assessee at the time of CIT(A) as the submissions before us.

The Ld. DR submitted that the CIT(A) erred in adjudicating the assessment order as null and void. The Ld. DR submitted that the assessee was deceased after the initiation of the assessment proceedings. Thus, the Ld. DR relied upon the order of the Assessing Officer

We have heard the Ld. DR and perused the order of the CIT(A). The assessment order is passed in the name of the deceased assessee. Thus, at the threshold itself the assessment was passed on a non existence person/assessee which itself is making the assessment null and void. The Assessing Officer was very well aware about the deceased assessee during the assessment proceedings. Therefore, the Assessing Officer should have brought on record the legal heirs while passing the assessment order. The CIT(A) has rightly deleted the addition by holding that the assessment itself is null and void. There is no need to interfere with the findings of the CIT (A). Hence, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed.