KALIM UDDIN PATHARIA LEGAL HEIR YUSUF PATHERIA,RALAM vs. THE PCIT-1, INDORE

PDF · subscribers
ITA 64/IND/2022Status: DisposedITAT Indore30 September 2022AY 2017-184 pages

In favour of the assessee: the assessee's appeal was allowed. From the AI summary of this appeal.

AI SummaryAllowed

What did the Tribunal hold?

The Tribunal held that the revision order was passed against a person who was not a legal representative of the deceased assessee. Since the revenue could not provide any material to prove the appellant's legal representative status, the revision order was quashed.

What were the facts?

The Pr. CIT initiated revision proceedings under Section 263 against an assessment order. The appellant, claiming to be the legal heir, challenged the revision order, stating the original assessee had deceased and they were wrongly implicated.

What were the issues?

Whether the revision proceedings under Section 263 were validly initiated against the appellant, who denied being the legal representative of the deceased assessee.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 263,Section 2(7)

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, INDORE BENCH, INDORE

Before: MS. MADHUMITA ROY & SHRI B.M. BIYANI

For Respondent: Shri P.K. Mitra, CIT-DR
Hearing: 19.09.2022Pronounced: 30.09.2022

Feeling aggrieved by revision-order dated 11.03.2022 passed by learned Pr. Commissioner of Income-Tax, Ujjain [“Ld. PCIT)”] u/s 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 [“the Act”], which in turn arises out of assessment-order dated 13.12.2019 passed by Assessing Officer u/s 143(3) for Assessment-Year [“AY”] 2017-18, the appellant (assessee’s side) has filed this appeal.

2. None appeared on behalf of appellant at the time of hearing. Ld. DR was, however, representing the revenue. Considering the straight-forward

Kalim Uddin Patharia Assessment year 2017-18 issue involved in the appeal, we proceeded for hearing and dispose of this appeal on the basis of material held on record and after hearing the Ld. DR.

3.

Briefly stated the facts culled out from case-record are such that the original assessment of one Shri Kalim Uddin Patharia was completed u/s 143(3) of the Act vide order dated 13.12.2019. Subsequently, thereafter, Ld. PCIT examined the record of assessment-proceeding and framed a view that the assessment-order was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of revenue. Accordingly, Ld. PCIT took action u/s 263 of the Act, which culminated into passing of revision-order dated 11.03.2022. Against this revision-order of Ld. PCIT, the present appeal before us.

4. By means of various grounds, the revision-order has been challenged and it is prayed to quash the same. The foremost and fundamental issue raised by appellant in one of the Grounds is, however, that the assessee Shri Kalim Uddin Patharia had already deceased and Shri Yusuf Patharia, the appellant in present-appeal, has been wrongly implicated for revision- proceeding although he is not a legal representative of the deceased assessee.

The appellant has completely denied about being the legal representative and therefore the revision-order made on the appellant is claimed to be illegal, liable to quashed.

5.

We have perused the record and heard the Ld. DR appearing on behalf of revenue. We observe that the revision-order does not speak as to how the appellant had been treated as legal representative of the deceased assessee.

Further, the revenue is not able to bring on record any material to rebut the Page 2 of 4

Kalim Uddin Patharia Assessment year 2017-18 Ground raised by appellant wherein the appellant has categorically denied of being legal representative of the deceased assessee. In this view of the matter, we find that the case of revision had been made upon a person who is not a “legal representative” and consequently does not fall within the meaning of “assessee” u/s 2(7) of the act. Being so, we are inclined to hold that the revision-order deserves to be quashed for the reason of this legal infirmity itself. We order accordingly.

6. Rest of the grounds do not require any adjudication as the revision- order itself has been quashed as per the discussion made in foregoing paragraph.

7.

In the result, this appeal is allowed.

Order pronounced in open court on 30.09. 2022.

Sd/- Sd/- (Ms. MADHUMITA ROY) (B.M. BIYANI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER Indore �दनांक /Dated : 30.09.2022 Patel/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order UE COPY Sr. Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Benches, Indore Page 3 of 4

Kalim Uddin Patharia Assessment year 2017-18 1. Date of taking dictation

2.

Date of typing & draft order placed before the Dictating Member

3. Date on which the approved draft comes to the Sr. P.S./P.S.

4.

Date on which the fair order is placed before the Dictating Member for pronouncement

5. Date on which the file goes to the Bench Clerk

6.

Date on which the file goes to the Head Clerk

More judgments on Section 263

All 13,616 judgments and leading authorities on Section 263 →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →