GITESH CHANDULAL PATEL LEGAL HEIR OF LATE HASUMATIBEN CHANDUBHAI PATEL,MEHSANA vs. THE PR. CIT-3, AHMEDABAD

PER DR. B.R.R. KUMAR, VICE-PRESIDENT :

1. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the impugned order u/s. 263 passed by the Ld. PCIT-3 is bad in law and deserves to be quashed. 1.1 In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT has been issued in the name of the deceased person, even when the fact of the death of the appellant was already in the knowledge of the department. Hence, the order passed by the Ld. PCIT is invalid and bad in law and thus, deserves to be quashed.

2. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad has erred in setting aside the re-assessment order dated 26.03.2022 passed by the Assessing Officer without considering the fact that the Assessing officer during the course of Assessment proceedings has already gone through same issue regarding unexplained cash deposits amounting to Rs.2,02,000/ and after satisfying himself with respect to the details submitted by the appellant company, the Ld. Assessing officer has passed the order under section 147 of the Act. Hence such reassessment order cannot be said to be erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.

3. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad has erred in arriving at a conclusion without any basis whatsoever to the effect that the re-assessment order passed u/s 147 of the Act by the Assessing Officer was erroneous as well as prejudicial to the interest of the revenue.

4. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the case, the Ld. PCIT has grossly erred in directing the AO to pass a fresh assessment order holding that the reassessment order was passed without examining facts of the case and on that ground, invoking provisions of Section-263 of the Income Tax Act.

5. In law and in the facts and circumstances of the Appellant's case, the PCIT-3, Ahmedabad has failed to appreciate that the twin conditions for assuming jurisdiction u/s. 263 of the Act are not satisfied in the case of appellant company as issue which has been relied upon for passing the order u/s. 263 does not show any error or prejudice to the interest of the revenue.

6. The appellant craves leave to add, alter, amend and/or withdraw any ground or grounds of appeal

either before or during the course of hearing of the appeal.”

3. The assessment order in the case of the assessee has been passed by the Income-tax Officer, Ward-1, Mehsana u/s 147 of the Act on 26.03.2022 determining total income at Rs.6,00,620/- against the returned income of Rs.3,98,620/- . Paragraph No.2 of the assessment order reads as under:-

“2. Therefore, a notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 12.11.2021 has been issued to the assessee and requesting him to furnish details in his case. Therefore, a reply has been received on 25.12.2021 and submitted that assessee had passed away on 30.05.2021. Thereafter, the case has been pushed back by NeFAC to the JAO on 11.03.2022 to complete the assessment. The notice u/s. 142(1) of the Act dated 12.03.2022 has been issued to legal heir/representative of the assessee as per provisions u/s. 159 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 as the assessee has passed away only after the proceedings were initiated. The objections filed by the assessee have been disposed of vide the notice dated 12.03.2022 and requested the assessee to furnish the required details/documents. The assessee has requested to provide the details and sources of cash deposit made during the demonetization period and other cash deposits.”

• The Assessing Officer at paragraph no.2 clearly mentioned that the assessee has passed away after the proceedings were initiated; • Thus, it is a matter on record that the assessee has expired before completion of the assessment; • The assessee has filed Death Certificate before the Assessing Officer indicating that the assessee has expired on 30.05.2021; • In spite of having the relevant information on record, the Ld. PCIT has passed an order on 06.02.2024 in the name of the assessee who has been since expired.