How many judgments cite CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff?

40 judgments on BharatTax cite CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff (48 ITR 59), spanning 2016 to 2026.

Which sections of the Income Tax Act does CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff come up under?

It is most often cited in judgments turning on Section 143(3), Section 142(1), Section 143(2), Section 250, Section 144, Section 148.

CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff

48 ITR 59Supreme Court of India1963#2953 most cited

What is CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff authority for?

Assessment proceedings initiated against a deceased person are void. Once an assessee dies, assessment proceedings can only continue in the name of their legal representative, to the extent of the deceased's estate.

judgments rely on this decision, according to BharatTax’s citation analysis of 366,470 Indian tax judgments — from 2016 to 2026.

Also referred to as

CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff · 48 ITR 59 · SC · deceased assessee · legal representative · void assessment · estate liability · section 159

Sections most often in play

Section 143(3)Section 142(1)Section 143(2)Section 250 Section 144 Section 148 Section 1961 Section 50C

Issues it is cited on

section 7(1)section 50c(1)section 153(2)section 159 section 45(5)compulsory acquisition legal representative enhanced compensation full value of consideration section 2(14)transfer of capital asset section 48

Judgments citing CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff

ACIT -893) (1), Mumbai vs. M/S. Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd, Mumbai

ITA 2270/MUM/2021[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai20 Dec 2022AY 2016-17

For Appellant: Shri Nitesh JoshiFor Respondent: Ms. Samruddhi Hande

Section 143(3)Section 36Section 43C

…IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL "E" BENCH, MUMBAI SHRI M. BALAGANESH, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER SHRI RAHUL CHAUDHARY, JUDICIAL MEMBER Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax- 8(3)(1), Mumbai, Aaykar Bhavan, Room No. 615, M.K. Road, New Marine Lines, Mumbai - 400020 …………… Appellant Vs Triple Securities Pvt. Ltd., 3rd Floor, 33 Huges N S Patkar Marg, Grant Road, Mumbai - 400007 [PAN: AABCT2752J] ……………. Respondent Appearances For the Assessee/Department : Ms. Samruddhi Hande For the Respondent/Assessee : Shri Nitesh Joshi Date of conclusion of hearing : 23.09.2022 Date of pronouncement of order : 20.12.2022 O R D E R Pe…

The DCIT-2(1), Indore vs. Retd. Capt. Vikram Singh (Executor of the Will of Late Smt. Laxmi Kumari), Indore

ITA 450/IND/2016[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Indore29 Jul 2022AY 2009-10

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad, Judicial Memebr & Shri Bhagirath Mal Biyani

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, A.RFor Respondent: 09/06/2022

Section 24B(2)Section 34

…ed: 1. ITO vs. Ramprasad & Ors. (1972) 86 ITR 145 (SC); 2. Shaikh Abdul Kadar vs. ITO (1958) 34 ITR 451 (MP); 3. CIT vs. Kumari Prabhavati Gupta & Ors. (1998) 231 ITR 188 (MP); 4. CIT Vs. Fatehlal (1996) 118 ITR 218 (MP); 5. CIT Vs. Amarchand & Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); 6. CIT Vs. Dalumal Shyamumal (2005) 276 ITR 62 (MP); 7. RC Jain (Deed.) Vs. CIT (2005) 273 ITR 384 (Del.); 8. CIT Vs. Motiram (Deed.) Through LH Dharampal 316 ITR 321 (P&H); 9. Rakesh Kumar Mukesh Kumar LH of Late Mohar Singh (2008) 219 CTR (P&H); 10. Late Smt. Laxmi Bai Karanpuria Through LH Rajendra Karanpuria Vs. ACIT (2011) 130 ITD 40 (IT…

The Commissioner of Income Tax vs. Shri I Mahabaleshwarappa

In the result, the order passed by the tribunal

ITA/561/2013HC Karnataka16 Jun 2021

Bench: ALOK ARADHE,HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

Section 132Section 143(2)Section 153ASection 159Section 2(22)(e)Section 260Section 260A

…n decisions in SARASWATI INDUSTRIAL SYNDICATE VS. CIT', (1990) 186 ITR 278, 'SPICE INFOTAINMENT LTD. VS. CIT', (2015) 65 DTR 391 (DEL), 'VIJAY KUMAR JAIN VS. CIT', (1975) 99 ITR 349 (PUNJAB AND HARYANA)', 'CIT VS. AMARCHAND N. SHROFF', (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC)', 'R.C.JAIN VS. CIT', (2005) 273 ITR 384 (DEL.), 'PCIT VS. MARUTI SUZUKI INDIA LTD.', (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) and GVK INDUSTRIES LTD. VS. ITO', (2011) 332 ITR 130 (SC). 9 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record. The solitary issue, which arises for consideration in th…

Late Sh. Raj Kumar Wadhwa Through L/H Smt. Usha Wadhwa, Patiala vs. DCIT, Circle, Patiala

In the result, the above appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 1335/CHANDI/2019[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Chandigarh14 Jun 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: The Appeal Is Finally Heard Or Disposed Off.” 3. Ground No 1 & 4 Being General In Nature Need No Adjudication.

For Appellant: Shri Sudhir Sehgal, AdvFor Respondent: Shri Ashok Khanna, Addl.CIT

Section 143(1)Section 147Section 148Section 250(6)

…mplated under s. 159 of the IT Act was sent to any of the legal representatives of assessee. In such circumstances, the order passed by AO on 24th Feb., 1993, becomes a nullity having been passed against the dead person [see CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) and ITO vs. Ram Prasad & Ors. (1972) 86 ITR 145 (SC)]. 3. In a case where an assessee dies pending any assessment proceedings, the provisions of s. 159 of the Act get attracted. It is the duty of AO to ensure compliance of sub-s. (2) of s. 159 before any orders are passed.” 26. The non compliance by the AO of the statutorily prescribed proced…

The DCIT, (OSD)-1, Circle-4, Ahmedabad vs. Midvalley Healthcare Services Pvt.Ltd., Ahmedabad

In the result, the CO of the assessee is partly allowed

ITA 204/AHD/2013[2008-09]Status: DisposedITAT Ahmedabad11 Mar 2021AY 2008-09

Bench: Shri Mahavir Prasad & Shri Waseem Ahmed

For Respondent: Shri Virendra Ojha, CIT. D.R

Section 10BSection 80ISection 92C

…that the scope of the deeming provision should be restricted to what is provided in such a provision. There cannot be any inference or intendment with respect to such provisions. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff reported in 48 ITR 59 and in case of CIT vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. reported in 155 ITR 711 held that the provisions (deeming) or fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. 10.8 The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of CIT vs. ACE Builders (P) Ltd. reported in 281 ITR 210 has also taken the same view. On perus…

Agro Tech Foods Limited., Sec'Bad, Secunderabad vs. DCIT, Circle-1(1), Hyd, Hyderabad

In the result, appeal in ITA No

ITA 775/HYD/2016[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Hyderabad17 Dec 2020AY 2010-11

Bench: Smt. P. Madhavi Devi & Shri D.S. Sunder Singh

For Appellant: Sri Dhanesh BafnaFor Respondent: Sri Y.V.S.T. Sai, CIT-DR

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 264Section 92C

…ated by the section should not be carried beyond the purpose for which it was intended which was reiterated by the Supreme Court in CIT v. Moon Mills Ltd. [1966] 59 ITR 574, in CIT v. Ajax Products Ltd. [1965] 55 ITR 741 , in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 . It was submitted that the Calcutta High Court in CIT v. Justice R.M. Datta [1989] 180 ITR 86 had held that the words of the statute are precise and unambigugus, they must be accepted as declaring the express intention of the legislation. The departmental representative contended that the amendment including the revision of an order of assessment…

ACIT, Circle-3, Ranchi vs. Shri Sumit Ramsisaria, Ranchi

ITA 222/RAN/2019[2015-16]Status: DisposedITAT Ranchi11 Dec 2020AY 2015-16

Bench: Shri J.Sudhakar Reddy & Shri S.S.Godara

Section 133(6)Section 143(3)Section 41(1)

…ctment. It is trite that the scope of a deeming provision has to be restricted to what is expressly stated in such a provision. There can be no inference or intendment as regards such a provision. The Hon'ble supreme Court in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 considered the ambit of a deeming provision and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. In CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P) Ltd. (1985)155ITR 711 (se) the same view was reiterated by holding that the "legal fictions are created only for some definite purpose and these must be limited to th…

Ritz Suppliers Pvt. Ltd., Kolkata vs. ITO, Ward- 12(3), Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 1945/KOL/2019[2016-17]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata17 Jan 2020AY 2016-17

Bench: Shri A. T. Varkey, Jm]

Section 143(3)Section 250Section 48Section 50C

…of land or building or both and in case the latter is lower than the former. It is a settled legal proposition that a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is enacted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 has considered the scope of a deeming provision and came to hold that it cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711/23 Taxman 8 by laying down that "legal fictions are created only for some de…

Ushaben M. Kantharia L/H of Late Hansaben L. Patel, Surat vs. The Income Tax Officer, Ward-5(2), Surat

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is hereby ordered to be allowed

ITA 2389/AHD/2014[2010-11]Status: DisposedITAT Surat30 Sept 2019AY 2010-11

Bench: Shri Amarjit Singh, Jm & Shri O.P.Meena, Am Hansaben L. Patel Ito, Ward-5(2) Surat. Through Her Legal, Heir Ushaben M. Kantharia, A-4 Jeevandeep Flats, Opp. Kadampalli Society, Timaliyawad, Nanpura, Surat. Pan/Gir No.Auvpp6911G Appellant) .. Respondent) Assessee By Shri Mihir M. Shah Revenue By Shri B. P. K. Panda (Sr. Dr)

Section 10(38)Section 142(1)Section 143(1)Section 143(2)Section 28Section 68

…inod Vyas. This type of conduct on the part of the Assessing Officer shows that either he was unaware of the law he was administering or failed to understand the law. 7.1 It has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff 48 ITR 59 that an order passed by the Assessing Officer against a dead person becomes a nullity. In the instant case, sufficient material was available before the Assessing Officer that the assessee has died. Still the Assessing Officer has passed the order against a dead person. Therefore, in our opinion the entire assessment proceedings becomes a nullity.…

Philips India Ltd., Kolkata vs. PCIT-IV, Kolkata

In the result, appeal of the assessee is dismissed

ITA 1142/KOL/2016[2009-2010]Status: DisposedITAT Kolkata27 Mar 2019AY 2009-2010

Bench: Sri J. Sudhakar Reddy & Sri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi] I.T.A. No. 1142/Kol/2016 Assessment Year: 2009-10 Philips India Limited..........……………………………………....………………..…………………….….Appellant Earlier Known As Philips Electronics India Limited 7 No. Justice Chandra Madhab Road Kolkata – 700 020 [Pan : Aabcp 9487 A] Principal Commissioner Of Income Tax - Iv, Kolkata…….............…....................…...Respondent Appearances By: Shri P.J. Pardiwala, Sr. Advocate & Shri Navneet Misra, Advocate, Appeared On Behalf Of The Assessee. Shri Robin Choudhury, Addl. Cit D/R, Appearing On Behalf Of The Revenue. Date Of Concluding The Hearing : January 10Th, 2019 Date Of Pronouncing The Order : March 27Th, 2019 O R D E R Per J. Sudhakar Reddy :-

Section 143(3)Section 263Section 32

Dcitcc 3(2) Cen RG 3, Mumbai vs. Hrishikesh D. Pai, Mumbai

In the result , the appeal of the Revenue in ITA no

ITA 2766/MUM/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai26 Sept 2018AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri Saktijit Dey & Shri Ramit Kocharआयकर अपीऱ सं./I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017 (नििाारण वर्ा / Assessment Year : 2012-13) बिाम/ Dcit, Cc 3(2) Cen Rg 3 Shri Hrishikesh D. Pai, R.No. 1913, 19Th Floor, C/O M/S. Pregnancy Air India Building, Advice & Services, V. Nariman Point, 304, Pearl Centre, Mumbai S.B. Marg, Dadar, Mumbai 400028 स्थायी ऱेखा सं./ Pan : Aabpp2139C (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) .. (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) Revenue By: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, Dr Assessee By : Shri. Vijay Mehta सुनवाई की तारीख /Date Of Hearing : 23.08.2018 घोषणा की तारीख /Date Of Pronouncement :26.09.2018 आदेश / O R D E R Per Ramit Kochar: This Appeal, Filed By Revenue, Being Ita No. 2766/Mum/2017, Is Directed Against Appellate Order Dated 05.12.2016 Passed By Learned Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals)-5, Mumbai (Hereinafter Called “The Cit(A)”), For Assessment Year 2012-13, The Appellate Proceedings Had Arisen Before Learned Cit(A) From Assessment Order Dated 30.03.2015 Passed By Learned Assessing Officer (Hereinafter Called “The Ao”) U/S 143(3) Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 (Hereinafter Called “The Act”) For Ay 2012-13. I.T.A. No.2766/Mum/2017

For Appellant: Shri. Vijay MehtaFor Respondent: Shri. Manoj Kumar Singh, DR

Section 143(3)Section 253(3)Section 50Section 54FSection 69B

…and hence eligible for deduction u/s 54 f the Act. It is true that section 50 of the Act is a deemed provision. In case of a deemed provision its applicability cannot be extended to other sections. Even Supreme Court in the case of CIT vs Amarchand N. Shroff [48 ITR 59 ] held that deeming provision is a fiction of law, it cannot be extended beyond the object for which it was enacted. By the above Supreme Court case, it is clear that in deeming provision fiction cannot be extended to other sections of the Act. Hence, appellant is correct in stating that deeming provision u/s 50 were for computation of capital gain…

DCIT - 15(1)(1), Mumbai vs. Automobile Products of India Ltd., Chennai

The appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

ITA 6197/MUM/2016[2004-05]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai05 Jun 2018AY 2004-05

Bench: Shri Joginder Singh & Shri G. Manjunathaassessment Year: 2004-05 Dcit-15(1)(1), M/S Automobile Products Of Room No.470, 4Th Floor, India Ltd. बनाम/ Aayakar Bhavan, 63-A, North Phase, Sidco Vs. M.K. Road, Industrial Estate, Ambattur, Mumbai-400020 Chennai-600098 (राज"व /Revenue) ("नधा"रती /Assessee) P.A. No.Aabca0725C

Section 2(14)(iii)Section 45Section 50CSection 6

…eceived or accruing as a result of such transfer in the given situation. 11.3 It is a settled legal proposition that a deeming provision cannot be extended beyond the purpose for which it is enacted. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 has considered the scope of a deeming provision and came to hold that it cannot be extended beyond the object for which it is enacted. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 711/ 23 Taxman 8 by laying down that "legal fictions are created only for some d…

M/S Gie Jewels, Jaipur vs. Income Tax Officer, Ward-2-1, Jaipur

In the result, the appeals of the assessee are dismissed

ITA 794/JPR/2017[2013-14]Status: DisposedITAT Jaipur08 Dec 2017AY 2013-14

For Appellant: Shri S.L. Poddar (Adv.)For Respondent: Smt. Neena Jeph (J.CIT)

Section 115JSection 143(3)Section 154Section 208Section 234Section 234B

…iability of supposition of law. In support of his contention he has relied upon the following decisions:- (i) CIT vs. Elphinstone Sps & Wvg. Mills Co Ltd 40 ITR 142 (SC) (ii) Balkrishnan Memon (MK) vs. ACED 83 ITR 162 (SC) (iii) CIT vs. Amarchand N Shroof 48 ITR 59 (SC) (iv) Executor & Trustees of Sir Cawasji Jehangir Vs. CIT 35 ITR 537 (Bom) To sum up his arguments, the ld. AR has submitted that the provisions of section 115JC are introduced in the statute with the purpose to tax the other persons in addition to companies paying zero tax. The purpose of this section is limited to pay tax as per this pro…

Santi Lata Behera, Dhenkanal vs. ITO, Ward-3(4), Bhubaneswar

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

ITA 192/CTK/2017[2012-13]Status: DisposedITAT Cuttack29 Nov 2017AY 2012-13

Bench: Shri N.S.Sainiआयकर अपीऱ सं./Ita No.192/Ctk/2017 (नििाारण वषा / Assessment Year :2012-2013) Late Paramananda Behera, Vs. Ito Ward-3(4) At-Town Planning Colony, Bhubaneswar Po & Dist-Dhenkanal स्थायी लेखा सं./जीआइआर सं./ Pan/Gir No. : Accpb 5868 R (अपीऱाथी /Appellant) (प्रत्यथी / Respondent) ..

For Appellant: Shri K.K.BalFor Respondent: Shri D.K.Pradhan, DR

Section 143(3)Section 147Section 159Section 159(2)Section 24B

…sed under the provisions of Sub-clause (b) of Sub-section (2) of Section 159. It is clearly inferred that assessment under the Act can only be made against an individual assessee who must be a living person. 5. In the case of CIT v. Amarchand N. Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 the Supreme Court held that the individual has ordinarily to be a living person and there could be no assessment on a dead person. With regard to the legal fiction, as has been created Under Section 159 of the Act, their Lordships of the Supreme Court referring to their earlier decision in the case of Bengal Immunity Co. Ltd. v. State of Bihar (sic…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 511/DEL/2014[2007-08]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2007-08

Bench: Smt Diva Singh & Shri Prashant Maharishiat Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent) At Kearney India Private Ito, Limited, Ward-1(1), Vs. 6Th Floor, Tower-D, Global New Delhi Business Park, Gurgaon Pan:Aadca1436G (Appellant) (Respondent)

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

…een fairly settled that the scope of a deeming provision should be restricted to what is expressly stated in such a provision. There can be no inference or intendment as regards such a provision. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court in CIT Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC) and CIT Vs. Mother India Refrigeration Industries P. Ltd. (1985) 155 ITR 711 (SC) considered the ambit of deeming provisions and held that the fiction cannot be extended beyond the object for which these were enacted. The Hon‟ble Bombay High Court in CIT Vs. Ace Builders P. Ltd. (2006) 281 ITR 210 (Bom.) has also taken similar view. On an appr…

M/S. A.T. Kearney India Private Limited, Gurgaon vs. ITO, New Delhi

In the result the ground No

ITA 510/DEL/2014[2005-06]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi23 Sept 2016AY 2005-06

For Appellant: Shri Salil Kapoor, AdvFor Respondent: Sh. Amit Ray, Sr. DR

Section 10ASection 10A(7)Section 115JSection 147Section 148Section 80I

ITO 20(3)(5), Mumbai vs. Yusuf Arabi, Mumbai

In the result, the appeal filed by Revenue is dismissed

ITA 4582/MUM/2015[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai08 Aug 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Shailendra Kumar Yadav

For Appellant: Shri Shivaji B. GhodeFor Respondent: None

Section 144Section 48Section 50C

…to restricted operation can be widened to include within its sweep all the cases where ‘such property’ is not covered. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Amar ITA No. 4582/Mum/15 A.Y. 06-07 [ITO vs. Shri Yusuf Arabi] Page 6 Chand Shroff [1963] 48 ITR 59 has held that ‘legal fiction’ is only for a definite purpose and they are limited to the purpose for which they are created and should not be extended beyond the legitimate field’. Similar view has been reiterated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT v. Mother India Refrigeration Industries (P.) Ltd. [1985] 155 ITR 7111. Hon’ble Supreme…

ADIT, Dehradun vs. M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5290/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Bench: Sh. H.S. Sidhu & Sh. O.P. Kantassessment Year: 2009-10 M/S. Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., Vs. Adit, Intl. Taxation, Dehradun C/O Nangia & Company, Suite 4A, Plaza M-6, Jasola, New Delhi (Pan: Aabch9433L) (Appellant) (Respondent)

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

…997) 139 CTR (SC) 564 : (1997) 225 ITR 746 (SC); (16) CIT vs. Tejaji Farasram Kharawalla Ltd. (1968) 67 ITR 95 (SC); (17) Union of India & Anr. vs. A. Sanyasi Rao & Ors. (1996) 132 CTR (SC) 81 : (1996) 219 ITR 330 (SC); (18) CIT vs. Amarchand N. Shroff (1963) 48 ITR 59 (SC); (19) CIT vs. Ajax Products Ltd. (1965) 55 ITR 741 (SC); (20) Sedco Forex International Drilling Inc. vs. Jt. CIT (Tribunal ‘D’ Bench, Delhi) (ITA No. 2024/Del/2001) (Asst. yr. 1998-99); (21) Circular No. 495 dt. 22nd Sept., 1987 [(1988) 67 CTR (St) 1] in respect of s. 44BB; (22) Finance Bill 1987 in respect of introduction of s. 44BB; (23) No…

Hallin Marine Uk Ltd., New Delhi vs. ADIT, Dehradun

In the result, both the appeal and the cross objection filed by the assessee are dismissed and the appeal filed by the Revenue is allowed partly for statistical purposes

ITA 5217/DEL/2012[2009-10]Status: DisposedITAT Delhi20 Jan 2016AY 2009-10

Section 143(2)Section 143(3)Section 44BSection 9(1)(vii)Section 92

ITO 16(2)(4), Mumbai vs. Late Shri Girdhardas K Damani L/R Anand G Damani, Mumbai

In the result, the Revenue’s appeal is dismissed

ITA 1828/MUM/2014[2006-07]Status: DisposedITAT Mumbai06 Jan 2016AY 2006-07

Bench: Shri Amit Shukla, Jm & Shri Rajesh Kumar, Am आयकर अपील सं./I.T.A. No 1828/Mum/2014 ("नधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2006-07)

For Appellant: Shri Mitesh Shah

Section 143(3)Section 14ASection 271(1)(c)

…case of death of the assessee no order of assessment including order of penalty could not be passed against such dead person and if any order was passed as such that would be null and void. The ld. Counsel placed reliance on the CIT Vs. Amarchand N. Shroff 48 ITR 59,65,55(SC) and ITO Vs. Ramprasad 70 ITR 59 (All.), and therefore submitted that the order of the penalty passed in the name of the deceased is non-est and liable to the quashed and annulled. The ld. Counsel further submitted that it view of the various decisions by the various High Court and Supreme Court that penalty proceeding under Act are qu…