HEMANT KUMAR NEMA Vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL
Hemant Kumar Nema
ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX
Click here to view full judgement.
P.K.Bansal, Member (A) -
(1.) SINCE all these appeals involve common issue, therefore, all these appeals filed by the different assessees of same group are disposed of by this common order. In I.T.A. Nos. 423, 424 & 426/Ind/2013, since ground No. 1 is not pressed, stands dismissed, as not pressed. In I.T.A. No. 425/Ind/2013 since ground No. 2 is not pressed, stands dismissed, as not pressed.
(2.) IN I.T.A. No. 425/Ind/2013, the assessee has taken the following ground: - -
"That the CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the assessment order dated 30.12.2011 passed by the Assessing Officer u/s. 143(3) of the Income -tax Act, 1961, ('the Act') without appreciating that the said order was without jurisdiction, non est and void ab initio in as much as the same was passed in the name of the deceased assessee."
We have heard the rival submissions and carefully considered the same. We noted that this is a fact that Shri Gopal Das Nema in whose name assessment has been made already died on 1.3.2009. The notice u/s. 143(2) was also served I the name of Shri Gopal Das Nema. The Assessing Officer even then without including the legal heir completed the assessment on the deceased person who was no more in existence even as on the date of the order i.e. 30.12.2011. The assessee has taken a specific ground in this appeal being ground No. 2 before the CIT(A). The ld. CIT(A) took the view that it was duty of the legal heir of the assessee to bring the fact of the death to the notice of the Assessing Officer along with the address of the legal heir with documentary proof of being a legal heir. The ld. Authorized Representative before us even though vehemently contended but did not produce any cogent material or evidence which may prove that the assessee has informed the Department about the death of Shri Gopal Das. From the assessment order, it appeared the return had been filed through e -filing by Shri Gopal Das. Even though the appeal before the CIT(A) has been filed in Form No. 35 by the legal heir on behalf of Late Shri Gopal Das. No evidence was brought to our knowledge to contradict this fact that the return was filed by the legal representative on behalf of Late Shri Gopal Das, in the submission and statement of facts. Before the CIT(A), the assessee states that the income tax return for the assessment year 2009 -10 was filed by the assessee on 29.9.2009 by e -filing. The assessee does not state the fact that the return was filed by the legal heir Shri Gopal Das Nema. This fact that the assessee has expired has also been stated before the CIT(A) by way of taking ground No. 2. Under these facts and circumstances, we do not find any merit in the ground taken by the assessee as it can at the most be regarded to be an irregularity not the illegality. We, therefore, dismiss this ground.
(3.) GROUND No. 2 in I.T.A. No. 423/Ind/2013, Ground No. 2 in I.T.A. No. 424/Ind/2013, Ground No. 3 in I.T.A. No. 425/Ind/2013 and Ground No. 2 in I.T.A. No. 426/Ind/13, both the parties agreed, is the common ground and whatever view this Tribunal may take on the basis of ground No. 2 in I.T.A. No. 423/Ind/2013, the same view may be taken in the other appeal. This ground reads as under:
"2. That the ld. CIT(A) erred on facts and in law in upholding the action of the Assessing Officer in denying exemption to the extent of Rs. 50 lacs claimed by appellant u/s. 54EC of the Act in respect of the investment made in REC Bonds on 31.03.2008 holding that the said investment was made before the date of transfer of the property.";
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.