Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण,च"ीगढ़ "ायपीठ “बी” , च"ीगढ़ IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, CHANDIGARH BENCH “B”, CHANDIGARH HEARING THROUGH: PHYSICAL MODE "ी आकाश दीप जैन, उपा"" एवं "ी िव"म िसंह यादव, लेखा सद" BEFORE: SHRI. AAKASH DEEP JAIN, VP & SHRI. VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, AM आयकर अपील सं./ िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year : 2017-18 Ankur Chabra Legal Heir Late Shri The ITO बनाम Rajesh Chabra Prop. MS Roshan Lal Ward 1(3), Ludhiana, Punjab and Sons Moti Nagar, Ludhiana, Punjab "ायी लेखा सं./PAN NO: AAUPC1499D अपीलाथ"/Appellant ""थ"/Respondent िनधा"रती की ओर से/Assessee by : Shri Sudhir Sehgal, Advocate राज" की ओर से/ Revenue by : Shri Danish Abdullah, JCIT, Sr. DR सुनवाई की तारीख/Date of Hearing : 27/08/2024 उदघोषणा की तारीख/Date of Pronouncement : 28/08/2024 आदेश/Order PER VIKRAM SINGH YADAV, A.M. :
This is an appeal filed by the legal heir of the Assessee against the order of the Ld. CIT(A), NFAC dt. 31/01/2024 pertaining to Assessment Year 2017-18. 2. In the present appeal, Assessee has raised the following grounds:
1. “That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in confirming the levy of penalty u/s 271AAC amounting to Rs. 1,48,800/- by way of order dated 31.01.2024.
2. That the levy of penalty is otherwise invalid and illegal, since the order has been passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the name of the dead person and it is a settled law that no order could be passed in the name of the dead person as per the judgment in the case of: i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar vs. ITO (1985) 34 ITR 450 (MP High Court) ii) CIT vs. Kumari Prabhawati Gupta 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) iii) CIT vs. Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All.) 3. That the Ld. CIT(A) has failed to appreciate that the quantum appeal was pending before the Hon'ble ITAT and, as such, the proceedings for levy of penalty u/s 271AAC could have been kept pending. 4. That the confirmation of levy of penalty is against the facts and circumstances of the case.
5. That the appellant craves leave to add, amend any grounds of appeal before or time of hearing.”
During the course of hearing, the Ld. AR submitted that this is an appeal filed by 3. the assessee against the levy of penalty under section 271AAC of the Income Tax Act, 1961. It was submitted that the order in the quantum proceedings has since been quashed by the Coordinate Bench as the same was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the name of the dead person. In this regard, our reference was drawn to the relevant findings which are contained at para 5 to 7 of the order passed by the Coordinate Bench in dt. 14/08/2024 which read as under:
We have considered the CIT(A)’s order, the arguments of the ld. Counsel for the Assessee and case laws relied upon by the Assessee as well as the arguments made by the ld. DR during the proceedings before us. The ld. Counsel has brought on record an order of Coordinate Bench of the Tribunal in the case of ‘Shri Amrit Paul Goyal vs. The DCIT’, order dated 4.1.2024, the relevant part of the order is reproduced as under:- “7. We have heard the parties and have perused the material on record. It is found that Smt. Neelam Goyal filed her return of income for assessment year 2019-20 and has also filed the appeal before this Tribunal as Legal Heir. It is noted that ld. PCIT was wrong in passing the order in the name of deceased person namely Late Shri Amrit Paul Goyal as it was already in the knowledge of the Department that Shri Amrit Paul Goyal had died on 12.07.2018 and Smt. Neelam Goyal had been approved as the representative of deceased on 15.09.2018. Accordingly, the order passed by the Assessing Officer as well as ld. PCIT in the name of the dead person is void abi-nitio. We find support from the following judgements: i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court) ii) CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) iii) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All).”
6. We have also considered the various judicial pronouncements and orders brought on record by the ld. counsel of the Assessee and we are of this considered view that the appeal before the ld. CIT(A) was filed by Shri Ankur Chhabra, Legal Heir of late Shri Rajesh Chabra but the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) dated. 21.12.2023 has been passed in the name of the deceased person late Shri Rajesh Chabra. Thus, it is noted that the ld. CIT(A) was wrong in passing the order in the name of a deceased person namely Late Shri Rajesh Chabra as it was already in the knowledge of the Department that Shri Rajesh Chabra had already died on 7.10.2022 and Shri Ankur Chhabra had been approved as a representative / legal heir on 30.11.2022. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) in the name of dead person is void ab initio. We find support from the following judgements: - i) Shaikh Abdul Kadar Vs ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP High Court) ii) CIT Vs Kumari Prabhawati Gupta, 231 ITR 188 (All. High Court) iii) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All). 7. Accordingly, the order passed by the ld. CIT(A) is quashed and the appeal of the Assessee stands allowed. 4. It was submitted that where the quantum proceedings have been quashed, the consequent penalty proceedings also deserves to be quashed especially where the order has again been passed in the name of the dead person. Further, reliance was placed on the written submissions which read as under:
“1. This is an appeal filed by the assessee and in this case, the assessment order was passed by the Income Assessing officer at an income of Rs. 28,77,050/- in the name of Sh. Rajesh Chhabra vide order, dated 29.03.2022.
The CIT (A) in quantum proceedings passed the order in the name of deceased person, though, the appeal was filed by the Legal Heir, Sh. Ankur Chhabra, who is 'registered representative assessee' as per the Income Tax portal and for which, the confirmation was received from the department regarding the representative assessee, copy enclosed.
At the time of levy of penalty by the Assessing Officer on 24.09.2022, the assessee was alive and he expired on 07.10.2022, which is apparent from the penalty order as passed by CIT (A). The Ld. CIT (A) has passed the order in the name of dead person, which is illegal order as he knew that the assessee had expired and appeal has been filed by legal heir as per page 2 of the order of CIT(A).
The appeal against the quantum order was also filed before the Hon'ble Bench and the quantum order has been quashed, since the order was passed by the Ld. CIT(A) in the name of dead person, though, he knew that the assessee Sh. Rajesh Chhabra had died as per the order of CIT (A) as per page 2.
5. Copy of the quantum order is being submitted herewith alongwith the following judgements, where, it has been held that any order in the name of dead person is bad in law:- i). Pardeep Jain Vs ITO, reported in [2024] 465 ITR 399 (Del. High Court) ii). Pravin Chandra A. Shah Vs Union of India & Others, reported in [2024) 461 ITR 307 (Guj.High Court), iii). Devendra Vs Addl/JCIT & Others, reported in [2024] 461 ITR 463 (ITAT, Nagpur Bench).
It is, therefore, very humbly prayed that the penalty as confirmed by the CIT (A) may, please, be quashed.
5. The Ld. DR is heard who has relied on the order passed by the lower authorities.
We have heard the rival contentions and purused the material available on record. It is noted that the order has been passed in the name of the dead person by the ld CIT(A) and following the order passed by the Coordinate Bench where on similar grounds, the order passed by the ld CIT(A) in quantum proceedings were quashed, the impugned order passed by the ld CIT(A) in name of the dead person is hereby quashed.
In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed.