LATE SRI SIDDAPPA KALLAPPA HALLI,VIJAYAPURA vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX CIRCLE-1, VIJAYAPURA

O R D E R

Per Shri A.K. Garodia, Accountant Member

by the assessee are as under. “1. The order of the learned Commissioner of Income-tax [Appeals] passed under Section 250 of the Act dated 03/07/2018, in so far as it is against the Appellant is opposed to law, weight of evidence, probabilities, facts and circumstances of the Appellant’s case.

2. The Appellant denies himself liable to be assessed on a total income of Rs.20,20,109/- as against the income reported of NIL by the Appellant, on the facts and circumstances of the case.

3. Grounds on jurisdiction to re-open assessment u/s. 148 of the Act. [i) The CIT [A] below erred in law in not holding that the order of assessment passerby the learned assessing officer under Section 144 r.w.s 147 of the Act is bad in law since the mandatory conditions as envisaged in the Act to assume jurisdiction u/s.147 did not exist or having not been complied with and consequently, the reassessment Page 2 of 3 requires to be cancelled on the facts and circumstances of the case. [ii] The authorities below failed to appreciate that the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act is bad in law and void ab initio since the notice is very vague and not specific and further as the reasons recorded were not communicated to the Appellant though the same was requested before the learned CIT [A] at the time of the Appellate hearing under the facts and circumstances of the case. [iii] The learned CIT [A] erred in not calling for the records of the learned assessing officer and examining whether the learned assessing officer had valid reason to believe that the income of the Appellant has escaped assessment and whether reasons to believe, if any amounted to merely reasons to suspect on the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case.

4. The CIT [A] erred in holding that the fair market value of the impugned land as on01/04/1981 to be Rs. 25,000/- per acre for the purpose of indexed cost of acquisition in the computation of long term capital gains, which is very low and needs to increased substantially under the facts and circumstances of the case.

urged above.

8. For the above and other grounds to be urged during the hearing of the appeal the Appellant prays that the appeal be allowed in the interest of equity and justice.”

3. In the statement of facts filed before the Tribunal, it was submitted by L/R of assessee in Para 1 of statement of facts that assessee has expired on 10.03.2017. The order of CIT(A) is dated 03.07.2018 i.e. much after the death of the assessee. But still, the order of CIT(A) is in the name of the dead person and not in the name of legal heir of the assessee. After noting these facts, it was observed by the bench that this order of CIT(A) in the Page 3 of 3 name of dead assessee is not proper and hence, the matter should go back to him for denovo decision after brining the legal heirs on record and after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In reply, both sides agreed to this proposition put forward by the bench. Accordingly, the impugned order of CIT(A) is set aside the restored back to the file of CIT(A) for fresh decision in the light of above discussion after providing adequate opportunity of being heard to both sides. In view of this, no adjudication on merit is called for at the present stage.