Loading judgment…
No AI summary yet for this case.
Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, CHANDIGARH
Before: SHRI A.D.JAIN & SHRI VIKRAM SINGH YADAV
आदेश/ORDER
PER A.D.JAIN, VICE PRESIDENT
This is assessee's appeal for assessment year 2018-19 against the order dated 31.03.2023 passed by the ld. PCIT(Central) Ludhiana.
2. The assessee has raised the following grounds of appeal :
1. That the Ld. PCIT, Ludhiana has erred in assuming jurisdiction u/s 263 and, thereby, holding that the assessment as framed by the Assessing ITA 329/CHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 Page 2 of 5 Officer vides order, dated 01.03.2021 was erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
2. That the Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate the fact that the Assessing Officer at the time of assessment proceedings had duly applied his mind to various issues and raised specific queries and had framed the assessment, after consideration all the replies and, thus, the assessment as framed by the Assessing Officer is neither erroneous and nor prejudicial to the interest of revenue.
3. That the Ld. PCIT has failed to appreciate that specific query of the amount offered during survey and its treatment in books of accounts was specifically asked for by the Assessing Officer and which was clarified and, thus, the Ld. Assessing Officer had taken a conscious view of the amount surrendered during survey and dully applied his mind.
Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal
, the Ld. PCIT has erred in holding that the surrendered professional income of Rs.50 lakh in the Assessment year 2018-2019 during survey conducted on 13.06.2017 was to be assessed as per the provisions of section 115BBE of the Income Tax Act.
5. That the Ld. PCIT has erred in not following the binding judgment of Jurisdictional Bench of the ITAT in the case of Surya Hatchery Vs PCIT (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 186 Chd and Surinder Kumar & Others reported in (2023) 102 ITR (Trib.) 247 and others, in which, on similar facts and circumstances, the order u/s 263 as passed by Ld. PCIT has been quashed.
5. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. PCIT has erred in exceeding his jurisdiction at the time of passing the order u/s 263 by giving some findings/observations with regard to cash deposits in the regular bank account of the assessee, which were not part of the show cause notice u/s 263 and hence the Ld. PCJ having exceeded his jurisdiction and, as such, the order as passed by the Ld. PCIT u/s 263 is void abinitio.
6. That the order has been passed against the facts and circumstances of the case.
The assessee has raised the following additional grounds of appeal :
"That the Ld. PCIT having passed the order in the name of deceased person namely Late Sh. Amrit Paul Goyal is bad in law and void abinitio
ITA 329/CHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 Page 3 of 5 since, it was already in the knowledge of the department that Sh. Amrit Paul Goyal had died on 12.07.2018.
That the Legal Heir, Smt. Neelam Goyal had been approved as the representative of deceased, Sh. Amrit Paul Goyal on 15.09.2018 thus, the order as passed by the Ld. PCIT in the name of dead person void abinitio as per the following judgments : 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).”
The facts of the case are that as per Death Certificate 6. on record, the assessee expired on 12.07.2018 after the passing of the ld. PCIT (Central) Ludhiana’s order dated 31.03.2023. The present appeal was filed on 23.05.2023 by Smt. Neelam Goyal, as Legal Heir of Shri Amarit Paul Goyal, Prop. M/s Amrit Nursing Home. The return of income for assessment year 2018-19 was digitally signed by Smt.
Neelam Goyal on 25.10.2018. Smt. Neelam Goyal got registered as ‘Representative Assessee’ in the portal of Income Tax of the assessee as per her request letter dated 14.09.2019 which was approved by the Department on 15.09.2018. The Assessing Officer issued first notice in the name of late Shri Amrit Paul Goyal u/s 142(1) dated 11.09.2018 and then issued another notice dated 12.09.2018 through Legal Heir Smt. Neelam Goyal. Smt. Neelam Goyal filed return of income for assessment year 2019-20 as Legal
ITA 329/CHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 Page 4 of 5 Heir. The appeal before the ITAT has also been filed by Smt.
Neelam Goyal as Legal Heir. The ld. Counsel for the assessee has relied on the following decisions : 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).”
The ld. Counsel for the assessee has also relied upon the decision of the ITAT Agra Bench in A.Y. 200-2001 dated 14.02.2017.
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)
ITA 329/CHD/2023 A.Y.2018-19 Page 5 of 5 iii) CIT Vs Suresh Chandra Jaiswal 325 ITR 563 (All).”
Accordingly, the order passed by the ld. PCIT is 9. quashed and the appeal of the assessee is allowed.
Order pronounced on 04th January,2024.