Loading judgment…
Facts
The Assessing Officer (AO) filed an appeal against the order of the CIT(A) which had allowed the assessee's appeal against the assessment order. The appeal was filed in the name of a deceased person, Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain, who passed away before the assessment order was passed. The AO also failed to file the complete order of the CIT(A).
Held
The Tribunal held that the appeal filed in the name of a deceased person is not maintainable. Furthermore, the failure to file the complete order of the CIT(A) and the incomplete manner in which the appeal was filed were also grounds for dismissal.
Key Issues
Whether an appeal filed in the name of a deceased person is maintainable, and whether the appeal is maintainable due to incomplete documentation and non-compliance with procedural requirements.
Sections Cited
144, 143(3), 68, 115BBE
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “D” BENCH, MUMBAI
Before: SHRI PRASHANT MAHARISHI, AM & SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINGH, JM
Assessing 1. Officer against the appellate order passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi [the learned CIT (A)] dated 14th August, 2023, wherein the appeal filed by the assessee against the assessment order passed under Section 144 read with section 143(3) of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) dated 28th December, 2019, passed by the Asst. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 23(3), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer), was allowed.
The learned Assessing Officer has raised following grounds of appeal:-
“1. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law is the Ld. CIT(A) right in deleting the addition made by the Assessing Officer without considering the Remand Report, which was due on 14.08.2023 whereas the ld. CIT(A) has passed the order on 14.08.2023 before uploading of the Remand Report prepared by the Assessing Officer.
2. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law is the Ld. CIT(A) right on 14.08.2023 when the assessee was non-cooperative, before the Assessing Officer and the order had been passed u/s 144 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 and thus the documents filed de
3. On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law the Ld.CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made by the AO without appreciating the facts that in such Bank accounts as when compared to the previous Financial year 2015-16 in this year ie. F.Y. 2016-17 in a particular month there is abnormal cash deposits which are not explained by the assessee and without any rectification in remand by the Assessing Officer.
On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards cash deposits at Rs.1,03,26,554/- as in the statement of the F.Y. 2016-17, same pattern is observed till October, 2016 that there no cash sales booked by the assessee till October, 2016, but on 8th of November, 2016, assesee suddenly made sale of Rs. 1,03,26,554/-, which required verification beyond doubt by the Assessing Officer.
On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CITIA) erred in deleting the addition made towards unexplained loans/credits to the extent of Rs.61,00,000/- as the same were not explained by the assessee that credit worthiness and genuineness of
5. On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition made towards interest of Rs. Ra. 11,37,147/ claimed as expenditure on unexplained loans / credits to the extent of Rs.61,00,000/- as the same were not explained by the assessee that credit worthiness and genuineness of transactions made. Hence, the deletion of interest is not acceptable and without any verification in remand by the Assessing Officer.
On the facts and the circumstance of the case and in law the Ld. CIT(A) erred in deleting all the additions made by the AO without appreciating the fact that nothing is explained to the satisfactions of the AO as it specifically mentioned in the section 68 of Income Tax Act, 1961.
8. On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the order of the Learned CIT(A) suffers from perversity as it ignores the facts brought on record establishing that no proofs are filed and explained by the assessee and without any verification in remand by the Assessing Officer.
On the facts and circumstance of the case and in law the Learned CIT(A) erred in deleting the addition of Rs. 1,03,26,554/- as unexplained deposits/investment u/s 68 overlooking the fact that the entire transactions were stage managed with the object to facilitate the assessee to
On the facts and the circumstances of the case and in law, Ld CIT(A) erred in ignoring the decisions in Sumati Dayal v. CIT 214 ITR-80 and CII v. Durga Prasad More 82 ITR-540 (S.C.) and coming to a conclusion only on the basis of the arguments advanced by the assessee, without awaiting the Remand Report by the Assessing Officer, when the assessee has not discharged its onus, during the assessment proceedings.”
Brief facts of the case shows that assessee filed its return of income on 31st October, 2017, at a total income of ₹43,43,730/- , which was selected for scrutiny for verifying abnormal increase in cash deposit during demonetization period. Notice under Section 143(2) of the Act was issued on 13th August, 2018. During the course of assessment, the learned Assessing Officer was informed by Mr. Shirish Ranjeet kumar Jain that assessee Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain has passed away on 27th November, 2019, and thereafter the legal heir of deceased was brought on record by the name of Mr. Shirish Ranjeet kumar Jain. The assessment proceedings were continued on legal heir. The learned Assessing Officer found on 8th November, 2016, assessee has made sales of ₹103,26,554/-, whereas in earlier years and during the same financial year prior to that date there was no cash deposited. The learned Assessing Officer after examination of cash bill found that all the cash The learned CIT (A) passed 34 pages order however, before us, 5. the learned Assessing Officer while filing the appeal did not file page no.5 to 33 of the appellate order. However, last line of the appellate order shows that the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Against this, the learned Assessing Officer is aggrieved and has 6. filed the appeal.
At the beginning itself, the learned Assessing Officer contested 7. that the appeal is filed by the learned Assessing Officer in the name of deceased person Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain, who passed away after filing of the return of income but before the passing of the assessment order. Even the assessment order is passed in the name of late Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain through legal heir Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain. However, the present appeal is filed in the name of dead person Shri Ranjeet Kumar Mohanlal Jain. He submits that if appeal is filed in the name of dead person same is not maintainable.
The learned Departmental Representative was questioned on that how the appeal can be filed in the name of a dead person. But it was stated as the return of income was filed in the name of same person and the Permanent Account Number (PAN) of the deceased is to be used for filing appeal , name of respondent is deceased person. It was stated that at the most same can be a irregularity.
There is another reason for dismissal of the appeal is that ld AO 10. has not filed the complete order of the ld CIT (A) as stated above.
Therefore, this appeal of the learned Assessing Officer deserves to be dismissed however we give liberty that if the learned Assessing Officer still wishes to file an appeal he must file the appeal in revised form no.36 along with the reasons for delay in filing of the appeal.
In the result, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer is 12. dismissed without discussing the issue on merit as it is filed against the deceased assessee without mentioning anything about legal heir and also in incomplete manner.
Consequently, the cross objection filed by the assessee also 13. stands dismissed. The assessee is also given a liberty that if the learned Assessing Officer files an appeal, the assessee will have In the result, both, the appeal of the learned Assessing Officer 14. and co of the assessee are dismissed.
Order pronounced in the open court on 31.05.2024.