Loading judgment…
Facts
The assessee, an individual, filed an income tax return declaring a total income of Rs. 3,95,700/- for AY 2014-15. Following a survey and scrutiny assessment, the Assessing Officer made significant additions to the total income, increasing it to Rs. 2,48,53,620/- and demanding a total tax of Rs. 1,41,60,313/-. The assessee's appeal before the CIT(A) was partly allowed.
Held
The Tribunal noted that the CIT(A)'s order was passed in the name of a deceased person, supported by a death certificate. Therefore, the Tribunal decided to remit the entire issue back to the CIT(A)/NFAC to pass a fresh order in the name of the legal heir after due notice.
Key Issues
Whether the additions made by the Assessing Officer were justified and whether the assessment order was passed in accordance with law, considering the death of the assessee prior to the order.
Sections Cited
143(3), 147, 133A, 68, 69A, 115BBE, 234B, 234C, 69B, 271A, 271B, 271(1)(c)
AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE
Before: SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI & SMT. BEENA PILLAI
IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL “B’’ BENCH: BANGALORE BEFORE SHRI CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SMT. BEENA PILLAI, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assessment Year: 2014-15 Somashekhar Virupax Umarani L/H Smt. Latharani S. Umarani Umarani Annexe Behind Hosur Jain Temple, ITO Vs. Near Chetana Weigh Bridge NCM Ward-2(4) Hubballi 580 029 Hubli Karnataka PAN NO : AADPU0417E APPELLANT RESPONDENT Appellant by : Shri Chaitanya V. Mudrabettu, A.R. Respondent by : Shri Subramanian S., D.R. Date of Hearing : 25.01.2024 Date of Pronouncement : 25.01.2024 O R D E R
PER CHANDRA POOJARI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER:
1. This appeal by assessee is directed against order of CIT(A) dated 31.8.2023 for the assessment year 2014-15. The assessee has raised following grounds of appeal:
“That the Order of assessment passed U/s 143(3) is erroneous, illegal and away from the facts and circumstances of the case.
That the Assessing Officer has estimated income from House property at Rs. 1,26,000 without any basis. The Assessing officer has not given reasonable opportunity of being heard on this matter. 3. That there is no justification to make addition of Rs. 2,35,33,000/- as un explained cash credit u/s 68 r.w.s 115BBE without any basis. Proper opportunity of being heard is not given during assessment u/s 143(3).
Somashekhar Virupax Umarani, Hubballi Page 2 of 3 4. That there is no justification to make addition of Rs. 1,30,000/- as un explained cash credit u/s 68 without any basis. Proper opportunity of being heard is not given during assessment u/s 143(3).
That there is no justification to invoke section 68 and 69A r.w.s 115BBE in a summary manner without establishing that such addition is unexplained one. To that extent addition made of Rs. 2,48,85,095 is illegal.
That there is no justification to demand total tax of Rs. 1,41,60,313/- including interest u/s 234B and 234C 7. That there is no justification to initiate penalty proceedings u/s 271A, 271B, 271(1)(c )for A/Y 2014-15 under the facts and circumstances of the case.
That any other grounds shall be urged, modified or re-stated with the permission of Honorable ITAT Bangalore /Panaji.
That Hon'ble (CIT Appeal-2) Panaji has confirmed huge additions without considering merits ,of the case and rational of Assessment Order passed u/s 143(3) which is opposed to the provisions of The Income Tax Act ,1961 and principles of natural justice.
2. Facts of the case are that the assessee is an Individual under PAN: AADPU0417E. The assessee derives income from Salary, rent from property and Real Estate for the year ending 31.03.2014. The Income Tax Return (ITR) was filed by the assessee on 28/08/2014 with total income of Rs.3,95,700/-. There was a Survey U/s 133A on the assessee. Subsequently the case was selected for scrutiny assessment after issuing required notice. The scrutiny assessment u/s 147 r.w.s 143(3) was concluded by the Assessing Officer on 31/12/2019 by making huge additions. The Assessing Officer has determined Total Income of Rs.2,48,53,620/- as against returned total income of Rs. 3,95,700/- for A.Y 2014-15. The Assessing Officer has made an addition of Rs. 4,85,44,095/- u/s 69A of the Act and taxed the same with Interest u/s 234B and 234C and demanded total Income Tax of Rs. 1,41,60,313/- for A.Y 2014-15. Aggrieved by the huge unwarranted addition of Rs. 2,48,85,095/- u/s 69B, the assessee had preferred this Appeal before the CIT(A), Hubli, who has partly allowed the appeal. Aggrieved by the said order, now the Legal Heir of the deceased assessee is in appeal before us along with required documents /Forms and Affidavit.
Somashekhar Virupax Umarani, Hubballi Page 3 of 3 3. We have heard the rival submissions and perused the materials available on record. It was the submission of the assessee’s counsel that ld. CIT(A)’s order has been passed in the name of dead person, who was expired on 24.7.2023, which is supported by death certificate produced by the assessee. In view of this, we are of the opinion that it is appropriate to remit the entire issue in dispute to the file of ld. CIT(A)/NFAC to take note of the death of the assessee and to pass fresh order in the name of legal heir Smt. Latha Rani S. Umarani in accordance with law after giving due notice to the assessee and calling reply from her.
In the result, appeal of the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes.