Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, legal heir of her deceased husband, received his retirement benefits and deposited them into fixed deposits. The Assessing Officer (AO) made additions towards unexplained investments, cash credits, and interest income. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was decided after her death, without proper notice to the legal heir.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the AO did not provide adequate opportunity for furnishing evidence and that the CIT(A) passed an order in the name of a deceased assessee, rendering it a nullity. The Tribunal restored the issues to the AO for fresh examination after providing adequate opportunity to the assessee.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the AO towards unexplained investments were justified without providing proper opportunity to the assessee, and whether the CIT(A)'s order was valid when passed in the name of a deceased assessee.
Sections Cited
Section 37(1) of the Income Tax Act
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, MUMBAI “A” BENCH : MUMBAI
Before: SHRI B.R. BASKARAN & SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE
Assessment Year 2014-15 Ms. Akansha Ughade, The Income Tax Officer, (Legal heir of Smt. Amita Vikas Ward – 34(1)(1), Ughade) vs. Aayakar Bhavan, M.K. Road, B-Wing, 1404 Hubtown Vedant Mumbai Mukandrao Ambedkar Road, GTB Nagar, Sion, Mumbai PAN : AAFPU0097C (Appellant) (Respondent) For Assessee : Shri Jayant Bhat, For Revenue : Shri Manoj Kumar Sinha, Sr.DR Date of Hearing : 12-08-2024 Date of Pronouncement : 13-08-2024 ORDER PER B.R. BASKARAN, A.M : The assessee has filed this appeal challenging the order dt. 31-01- 2024 passed by the Ld.Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi [„Ld.CIT(A)‟] and it relates to AY. 2014-15.
The Ld.AR submitted that the assessee is an individual and was serving in Indian Railways. Her husband expired on 24-03-2012 and accordingly, the retirement benefits of her husband were received by the assessee. All those moneys were deposited into Fixed Deposits with ITANo. 840/Mum/2024 co-operative banks. The assessee filed her return of income for the year under consideration, declaring a total income of Rs.5,76,620/-, which was revised to Rs. 5,74,120/- later. In view of the large deposits held by the assessee, the return of income was taken up for scrutiny.
During the course of assessment proceedings, the AO recorded a statement from the assessee on 27-12-2016, wherein the assessee admitted that the sources relating to various Fixed Deposits were not readily available and the same will be produced later. However, the AO completed the assessment on the very same day i.e., on 27-12-2016 itself by making additions towards un-explained investments, un-explained cash credits and interest income.
The Ld.CIT(A) also confirmed the same. It is also pertinent to note that, while the appeal was pending before the Ld.CIT(A), the assessee also expired on 11-01-2023. However, the Ld.CIT(A) proceeded to pass the order on 31-01-2024 in the name of the deceased assessee, even though the notice of death of the assessee was brought to his notice by the Legal Heirs. Since the Ld.CIT(A) confirmed the additions, the Legal Heir of the assessee has filed this appeal.
The Ld.AR submitted that the AO did not provide enough opportunity to the assessee for furnishing sources relating to bank deposits. Accordingly, Ld.AR prayed for providing a proper opportunity to the assessee.
We heard the Ld.DR and perused the record. We noticed that the AO has recorded a statement from the assessee on 27-12-2016 and he passed the assessment order on the very same day. In the said statement,
ITANo. 840/Mum/2024 which is extracted in the assessment order, the assessee has specifically sought time for furnishing evidences relating to the sources. Admittedly, the AO did not give time to the assessee. When the appeal filed by the assessee was pending before Ld.CIT(A), the assessee expired and the said information was brought to the notice of Ld.CIT(A) by the legal heir. However, he has passed the order on the name of deceased assessee. Hence, the order of the Ld.CIT(A) will be a nullity in the eyes of the law.
Since the assessee was not provided with proper opportunity by the AO and since the documents that may be furnished by the assessee would require verification, in the interest of natural justice, we deem it proper to restore all the issues contested before the Tribunal to the file of the AO, so that the assessee could furnish necessary evidences and documents, explaining the sources of deposits.
Accordingly, we set aside the order passed by the Ld.CIT(A) and restore all the issues to the file of the AO for examining them afresh. After affording adequate opportunity of being to the assessee, the AO may take an appropriate decision in accordance with law.