PRATIMA C. SINGH L.H OF LATE CHANDRASHEKHAR S. SINGH,MUMBAI vs. ITO 20(1)(2), MUMBAI

The ld. DR, at the outset, has brought to our notice that the original assessment order in this case was passed u/s. 144 of the Act on 19.12.2008. He has further brought our attention to para 3.3 of the impugned order of the CIT(A) wherein he has noted the submissions on behalf of the assessee that the original assessee, viz., Shri Chandrashekhar S. Singh had expired on 25.9.2006 after prolonged illness. It has also been noted that the widow of the assessee, viz., Smt. Pratima C. Singh was not aware of the accounts of the assessee and was dependent on the accountant employed by her late husband. She was not able to produce the required details before the AO during the assessment proceedings. It has been further stated before him that Smt. Pratima C. Singh, being a housewife, was unaware of the details of expenditure incurred or investments made by her late husband. She was, therefore, not able to furnish the details regarding investment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. The AO passed the order u/s. 144 not on account of that he had discovered any wrong claim made by the original assessee, but due to failure on the part of the legal representative of the assessee in furnishing the required details relating to investment of Rs. 15,00,000/-. It was under such circumstances that the additions were made in this case.

It is a case where the legal representative of the assessee due to death of her husband was not able to furnish the required details. There was no wilful default on the part of assessee or her legal representative to furnish the required details demanded by the AO. In such a factual position, it cannot be said to be a case of concealment of particulars of income or furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income. The widow-cum-legal representative of the assessee was not a party to the transactions done by the assessee and was thus not supposed to know the details of each and every transaction. The original assessee was no more in this world during the assessment proceedings to show or produce the relevant details before the AO. Under such circumstances, neither the present case can be held to be a case of concealment of income nor a case of furnishing of inaccurate particulars of income and the penalty levied by the lower authorities, thus, is not sustainable in the eyes of law, and same is accordingly ordered to be deleted.

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is hereby allowed.