MANDEEP SINGH KULBIRSINGH THANDHI ,NAVI MUMBAI vs. DCIT , PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that since the appellant Mr. Kulbirsingh Thandhi was expired on 15.07.2008, the question of assessing the income in his case for the A.Y 2010-11 is itself bad in law and therefore the order passed by the AO deserve to be annulled.

Under the facts and the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) while passing the order ex-parte has failed to appreciate that the assessment itself on deceased person was null and void ab initio and therefore he should have set aside the order of the assessing officer in limine even when the order is passed ex-parte.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned in CIT APPEAL has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 17,65,638/-being 5% of the total turnover of Rs. 3,53,12,750/- without appreciating the fact that the said income has already been taxed in the hands of the partnership firm, thereby resulting in double taxation. Hence, the addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted.

Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 17,65,638/-, which is a duplication of income already disclosed in the Return of Income filed by the partnership firm. Hence, the same deserves to be deleted to prevent double taxation.

The appellant craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of the hearing.”

Ld.AR submitted that Mr.Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi expired on 15/07/2008. He invited our attention to the page 33 of the ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 [A]

1 Ld.AR submitted that deceased Mr.Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi was proprietor of Samrat Carriers. After his death the Business of Samrat Carrier has been converted into Partnership firm. The receipts have been shown in the return filed by the firm. Ld.AR submitted that all these facts were explained to the AO. Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Return filed by the Firm was submitted to the AO and it is mentioned in the assessment order.

Ld.DR accepted that no assessment order can be passed.

We have heard both the parties and perused the records.

2 Thus, it can be seen that the AO had issued notice u/s 148 for AY 2010-11 on 31/03/2017 in the name of Mr.KulbirsinghSantsingh Thandi.It is noted that Mr.KulbirsinghSantsingh Thandi died on 15/07/2008. Copy of Death Certificate is at page no.33 of the paper book.

The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs ACIT 458 ITR 326 (Bombay)[27-06-2023] has held as under : Quote, “For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void and consequently, the impugned notice dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148 of the Act, the Order dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act and Notice dated 19th March 2022 u/s 148A(b) of the Act are quashed ….” Unquote.

1 Respectfully following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we hold that the notice u/s 148 is bad in law and the Order u/s.144 r.w.s 147 dated 15/12/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 is void ab initio.

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