MOHANSUNDARAM JAYASUJA,COIMBATORE vs. PCIT, CENTRAL,, CHENNAI

ITA 959/CHNY/2025Status: DisposedITAT Chennai11 August 2025AY 2020-2116 pages
AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the notices issued under Section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were issued to deceased persons, making the assessment proceedings void ab initio. The Tribunal relied on the decisions in Vipin Walia, Rasid Lala, and Spice Entertainment Ltd., which established that initiating assessment proceedings against a dead person is a jurisdictional defect and not a curable procedural irregularity. The Tribunal found that the revenue's attempt to distinguish the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP was not convincing as the factual background was different. Consequently, the Tribunal set aside the impugned orders passed by both the Assessing Officer and the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax for the assessment years in question, as they were passed in the name of dead persons. The appeals filed by the assessees were allowed.

What were the facts?

The appeals were filed by the assessees against the orders of the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) for various assessment years (2013-14 to 2020-21). The assessees are Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, the legal heir of late Smt. K. Lakshmi, and Mohansundaram Jayasuja. The appeals were filed with a significant delay, which the Tribunal condoned due to medical reasons presented by the assessees. The core issue revolves around orders passed by the PCIT under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, directing the Assessing Officer (AO) to modify assessment orders. The assessees contended that the original assessments were completed after due verification and that the PCIT erred in assuming jurisdiction under Section 263. The revenue argued that the AO had not applied his mind and failed to verify investments and their sources.

What were the issues?

1. Whether the order passed by the Principal Commissioner of Income Tax (PCIT) under Section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the revenue, considering the AO's assessment order was passed after scrutiny and verification of details submitted by the assessee? Assessee's Contention: The PCIT erroneously invoked Section 263 as the AO had conducted a scrutiny assessment, issued notices, called for details, and passed a speaking order accepting the returned income. The original assessment order was neither erroneous nor prejudicial to the revenue. The PCIT's direction to the AO to modify the assessment was beyond the powers conferred under Section 263(1)(i). Revenue's Contention: The AO did not apply his mind and failed to verify the investments and their sources, justifying the PCIT's invocation of Section 263. 2. Whether the assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void ab initio and beyond the jurisdiction of the tax authorities, particularly when notices were issued after the assessee's death and without impleading legal heirs? Assessee's Contention: Notices under Section 148 were issued to dead persons, rendering the entire proceedings void. Reliance was placed on High Court decisions in Vipin Walia, Rasid Lala, and Spice Entertainment Ltd., which held that assessments against non-existing persons are jurisdictional defects and not curable under Section 292B. Revenue's Contention: The revenue attempted to distinguish the precedents by referring to Sky Light Hospitality LLP case, arguing that defects were curable. However, the Tribunal found this distinguishable on facts.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 147,Section 148,Section 143(3),Section 139(1),Section 159,Section 292B

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

onaer amfiette after, “eal =aratite, dag IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL , ‘C’ BENCH, CHENNAI

stay par MR, ate wees Ud US. ok. VET, Hal Wael H TA BEFORE SHRI MANU KUMAR GIRI, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI S.R. RAGHUNATHA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER

STGEX sila G/ITA No.: 951 to 953/Chny/2025 Fufzot af / Assessment Years: 2013-14, 2014-15 & 2015-16

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. | Chennai. Coimbatore — 641 001. [PAN: AERPM-3937-R] (stitereff/Appellant) (Feeft/Respondent)

SIGT Att S/ITA No.: 954 & 955/Chny/2025 fufzot af / Assessment Years: 2017-18 & 2018-19

Subramaniam Mohan Sundaram PCIT (Central)-2, Legal heir of Late Smt. K.Lakshmi, vs. | Chennai.

395, Oppanakara Street Coimbatore — 641 001. [PAN: AAZPL-6816-A] (stitereff/Appellant) (Feefl/Respondent)

oTaey site S/ITA No.: 956 to 959/Chny/2025 frufzor af / Assessment Years: 2015-16, 2016-17, 2018-19 & 2020-21

Mohansundaram Jayasuja, PCIT (Central)-2, 395, Oppanakara Street vs. | Chennai. Coimbatore — 641 001. [PAN: AIYPJ-4331-M]

(stitereff/Appellant) (Weeft/Respondent) artterelf &t ik BAppellant by : Shri. S. Sundararaman, C.A (Erode) & Shri. S.Anatharaman, Advocate. were at six B/Respo

The order continues below.

Read the full judgment

A free account opens 10 full judgments a month. Re-reading one you have already opened does not count again.

Create a free accountSign in

See plans and prices

The summary, the parties, the sections and the citations above are open to everyone and always will be. Only the text of the order and the PDF are metered.

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →