CHARUMATIBEN JITENDRA MEHTA LEGAL HEIR OF LATE JITENDRA NAROTTAMDAS MEHTA,THANE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD-1(2), BHAVNAGAR

PDF · subscribers
ITA 961/AHD/2023Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad14 February 2024AY 2009-10Bench: SHRI WASEEM AHMED (Accountant Member), Ms. MADHUMITA ROY (Judicial Member)3 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 penalty order and the appellate order were unsustainable in law as they were passed against a deceased person. The fact of the assessee's death was known to the revenue authorities.

What were the facts?

The appeal was filed against a penalty order passed under Section 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act for AY 2009-10. The penalty order and the subsequent appellate order were passed in the name of a deceased individual, Jitendra Narottamdas Mehta, who had passed away in 2013.

What were the issues?

Whether a penalty order passed in the name of a deceased assessee is valid. Whether the revenue authorities were aware of the assessee's death at the time of passing the order.

Which sections of the Income-tax Act were involved?

Section 271(1)(c),Section 274

AI-generated summary — verify with the full judgment below

Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, “SMC” BENCH, AHMEDABAD

Before: SHRI WASEEM AHMED&

For Appellant: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
For Respondent: Shri V. K. Mangla, Sr. DR
Pronounced: 14/02/2024

O R D E R

PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM:

1.

The instant appeal filed at the instance of the assessee is directed against the order dated 22.11.2023 passed by the National Faceless Appeal Centre (NFAC), Delhi, arising out of the penalty order dated 13.03.2019 passed by the ITO, Ward-1(2), Bhavnagar, under Section 271(1)(c) r.w.s. 274 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act’) for Assessment Year 2009-10.

(Charumatiben J. Mehta L/h. of Late Jitendra N. Mehta. vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2009-10 - 2 - 2. The appellant has come up in appeal on the ground that the order impugned has been passed in the name of deceased person, namely, Jitendra Narottamdas Mehta, husband of the appellant who was expired on 06.02.2013. This particular fact is also mentioned in the assessment order, to this effect, Jitendra Narottamdas Mehta Late husband of Charuben Jitendra Mehta i.e. the appellant before us. In spite of that, the order of penalty dated 13.03.2019 was issued in the name of deceased followed by the order impugned passed on 22.11.2023 by the NFAC, Delhi. In that view of the matter, the order is liable to be quashed as was the crux of the submissions made by the Ld. AR before us which has not been able to be controverted by the Ld. DR.

3.

Having heard the Ld. Counsels appearing for the parties and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly, the order impugned passed in the name of the deceased who passed away long back on 06.02.2013 which is also known to the Revenue authorities, we find the order is not sustainable in the eye of law and, thus, the impugned order of penalty by the Ld. AO upheld by the Ld. CIT(A), is quashed. Appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed.

4.

In the result, the appeal preferred by the appellant is allowed.

This Order pronounced on 14/02/2024 Sd/- Sd/- (WASEEM AHMED) (MADHUMITA ROY) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Ahmedabad; Dated 14/02/2024 S. K. SINHA True Copy (Charumatiben J. Mehta L/h. of Late Jitendra N. Mehta. vs. ITO) A.Y.– 2009-10 - 3 - आदेश क� ��त�ल�प अ�े�षत/Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथ� / The Appellant 2. ��यथ� / The Respondent. 3. संबं�धत आयकर आयु�त / Concerned CIT 4. आयकर आयु�त(अपील) / The CIT(A)- 5. �वभागीय ��त�न�ध, आयकर अपील�य अ�धकरण, अहमदाबाद / DR, ITAT, Ahmedabad 6. गाड� फाईल / Guard file. आदेशानुसार/ BY ORDER,

More judgments on Section 271(1)(c)

All 25,141 judgments and leading authorities on Section 271(1)(c) →

Recent GST High Court judgments

Search GST case law →