RINJU ADITYAKUMAR GOGOI L/H OF LATE ADITYA KUMAR GOGOI,VADODARA vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-4(1)(4), VADODARA

Assessment Year 2017-18 Rinju Adityakumar Income Tax Officer, Gogoi L/H of Late Ward-4(1)(4), Aditya Kumar Gogoi, Vs Vadodara 303, Chandan Residency, Makarpura Road, Makarpura, Vadodara-390009 Gujarat PAN: ADAPG3424D (Respondent) (Appellant) Assessee Represented: Shri Sakar Sharma, A.R. Revenue Represented: Smt. Trupti Patel, Sr.D.R. Date of hearing : 09-05-2024 Date of pronouncement : 14-05-2024 आदेश/ORDER PER : T.R. SENTHIL KUMAR, JUDICIAL MEMBER:-

This appeal is filed by the Assessee as against the appellate order dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), National Faceless Appeal Centre, Delhi, (in short referred to as “CIT(A)”), arising out of the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) relating to the Assessment Year 2017-18.

Page No 2 Rinju Adityakumar Gogoi L/H of Late Adityakumar Gogoi vs. ITO

2.1. In response, it is informed through assessee’s email id that the assessee died on 23.11.2018 and enclosed copy of the death certificate. On further enquiry by the department, the assessee son through email dated 07.12.2019 provided details legal heir of the assessee namely Ms. Rinju Adityakumar Gogoi, who was the spouse of the deceased assessee. Thereafter the legal heir participated in the assessment proceedings by filing reply on 13.12.2019, 21.12.2019 and 24.12.2019 explaining the cash deposits made by the assessee in his bank accounts. The Assessing Officer was not satisfied with the replies and treated the entire cash deposits in the bank accounts as unexplained money u/s. 69A of the Act and taxed u/s. 115BBE of the Act @ 60% and demanded tax thereon. Further the Assessing Officer framed the assessment order dated 27.12.2019 in the name of the “dead person” namely Adityakumar Gogoi. The assessee filed an appeal before Ld. CIT(A). The appeal was dismissed thereby confirming the addition made by the Assessing Officer.

Page No 3 Rinju Adityakumar Gogoi L/H of Late Adityakumar Gogoi vs. ITO

1. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding assessment order passed u/s 143(3) in the name of dead person to be valid assessment despite legal heir was informed well before completion of assessment together with death certificate.

2. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs. 23,78,000/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE by treating appellant to be owner of cash deposited bank accounts even though amount so deposited in the bank account do not belong to the appellant but belonged to third parties.

3. The Ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding addition of Rs. 2,08,500/- made u/s 69A r.w.s. 115BBE by treating the same to be unexplained investment even though source of cash deposit in the bank account was explained.

4. The Ld. CIT (A) erred on facts and in law in uploading the action of the Assessing Officer invoking deeming provisions u/s 69A and applying higher rate of taxation thereon u/s 115BBE without appreciating that appellant was subjected to search and seizure action much before the introduction of Taxation Laws (Second Amendment) Act, 2016 w.e.f. 15-12- 2016 and therefore, higher rate of taxation was not applicable in the case of the appellant as held by Hon'ble Indore Bench of the Tribunal.

4. Ld. Counsel Shri Sakar Sharma appearing for the Legal heir of the assessee submitted that the very basic assessment order is invalid in law since the same was passed on a dead person, in spite of informing the Assessing Officer, the death of the assessee on 23.11.2018. During pendency of the appeal, the Ld. CIT(A) also informed the death of the assessee, by his legal heir but order passed on a dead person. Therefore prayed the assessment order is liable to be quashed and relied upon Co-ordinate Bench of this Tribunal in the case of Devendrasinh Ramsinh Rana Vs. ITO in & 311/SRT/2023 vide order dated 30.08.2023 and Rajkot Bench decision in the case of Smt. Bhavnaben K. Punjani Vs. PCIT reported in 159 taxmann.com 650.

Page No 4 Rinju Adityakumar Gogoi L/H of Late Adityakumar Gogoi vs. ITO

Page No 5 Rinju Adityakumar Gogoi L/H of Late Adityakumar Gogoi vs. ITO 140 taxmann.com 423 (Guj.), Utpala Pradeep Jain (L/H of Late Pradeep R Jain) Vs. ACIT reported in (2023) 295 taxmann.com 322 (Guj.) and Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel Vs. ITO reported in 413 ITR 276 (Guj.).