VISHNU KUMAR KATTURI,ADILABAD vs. I.T.O WARD-1, NIRMAL

Although a number of grounds have been raised by the assessee, however, these all relate to the order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC in confirming the addition of Rs.95,10,000/- made by the Assessing Officer on a diseased assessee.

Facts of the case, in brief, are that the assessee is an individual. In this case, information was received that the assessee had invested an amount of Rs.95,10,000/- in the Page 1 of 6 Savings Bank Account No.1459115000001761 held with M/s. Karur Vysya Bank Ltd, Adilabad. Since the assessee is not assessed to Income Tax, the case of the assessee was reopened and accordingly notice u/s 148 dated 26.03.2018 was served on 27.03.2018. Subsequently, statutory notices u/s 143(2) and 142(1) were issued and served on the assessee requesting him to attend the office and furnish copy of the return along with the required information. However, the assessee neither filed any return of income nor attended the hearing despite several opportunities granted. Therefore, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment u/s 144 r.w.s. 147 of the I.T. Act determining the total income of the assessee at Rs.95,10,000/-.

In appeal, the learned CIT (A) NFAC upheld the order of the Assessing Officer.

Aggrieved with such order of the learned CIT (A) NFAC the assessee is in appeal before the Tribunal.

The learned Counsel for the assessee submitted that in the present case, as per the assessment order, notices u/s 148 of the I.T. Act was served on the assessee on 27.03.2018 and thereafter vide notices dated 19.7.2018 and 30.8.2018, the assessee was called upon to attend the hearing. The father of the assessee had appeared before the Assessing Officer and the contentions were recorded by the Assessing Officer in Para 3 of the assessment order as under:

It was submitted by the learned AR that the assessee namely Shri Vishnu Kumar Katturi had passed away on 7/11/2017 prior to the issuance of notice u/s 148 by the Assessing Officer and it was submitted that the notice u/s 148 was issued on 26.03.2018. It was submitted that the reopening of the assessment as well as the passing of the assessment order based on the submission of the father of the diseased assessee are non-est in the eyes of law. It was further submitted that the bank Account which was referred to in the assessment order belongs to the father of the diseased assessee and the amount deposited in the bank Account of the father of the diseased assessee were added to the income. It was submitted that feeling aggrieved by the order, the assessee (late Shri Vishnu Kumar Katturi through his father) had filed an appeal before the learned CIT (A) NFAC. Brief facts of the case in Para 11 of the Form 35 it is mentioned as under:

From the reading of the averments made in para 11 it is clear that the assessee has passed away on 7.11.2017 prior to the issue of notice u/s 148. It was submitted by the learned AR that the assessment is required to be quashed and for that purpose, he relied upon the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in in the case of Shri Siva Janardhana Varma Muppala vs. Dy. CIT order dated 31.03.2023.

The learned DR, on the other hand, heavily relied on the order of the Assessing Officer and the learned CIT (A) NFAC.

We have heard the rival arguments made by both the sides and perused the orders of the AO and the learned CIT (A) NFAC. Though in a re-assessment proceeding, notice cannot be Page 4 of 6 issued in the name of the diseased person and a reopening made in the name of a diseased person per se is not maintainable in the eyes of law. Therefore, the appellate order which was based on such a reopening is bad in law and is not sustainable. In the present case, the father of the diseased assessee Shri Katturi Ashok Kumar had brought this fact before the Assessing Officer as well as the learned CIT (A) NFAC. Further, this is also verifiable from the memo of the part in Form 35 which reflects the name of the diseased son Shri Vishnu Kumar Katturi.

In the light of the above, we annul the assessment which has been made on a deceased person. For the above proposition, we rely on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of Shri Siva Janardhana Varma Muppala vs. Dy. CIT (Supra) order dated 31.03.2023 wherein it was held as under:

In view of the above discussion, the notice issued u/s 148 on a dead person is a nullity. Consequently, the order passed Page 5 of 6 u/s 144/147 of the I.T. Act and the demand so raised are quashed.

In the result, appeal filed by the assessee is allowed.