2023 (12) TMI 700 - AT - Income Tax

Reopening of assessment u/s 147 against legal heirs of late assessee - whether the legal heirs also received any benefit or not as late Smt. Sita Badoliya assessee has not received any benefit from the transaction done by Shri Jethmal Binawara? - HELD THAT - Since the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act is already decided by the ld. CIT(A) by holding that the AO failed to bring on record any evidence whatsoever, which could even remotely suggest that late Smt. Sita has some benefit on account of transaction entered by late Shri Jethmal Binawara. This is as per the court order that the late Smt. Sita and her sister Smt. Sanjana only received Rs. 21,355/ which was equally divided between both of them. Nothing substantial has been received by the late Smt. Sita from the property of Shri Jethmal Binawara. No proper enquire was done at the assessment stage and the assessment has been made in a very causal manner without establishing that the assessee (Late Smt. Sita) was only beneficiary and as per provision of law AO cannot taxed the notional income in the hands of the assessee. The similar finding is confirmed by the ITAT, where in the Coordinate Bench in favour of the assessee (Late Smt. Sita) holding that the notice u/s 148 of the Act has not been served to the legal heirs of the deceased and the said defect is not curable. Therefore, even after taking on record the legal heirs of assessee (Late Smt. Sita) the moot question will remain same. Nothing to deviate from the finding of the coordinate bench already recorded and the revenue here also in a very causal approach not assisted to the bench and therefore, at this stage we record the legal heirs of late Smt. Sita and confirm the earlier order. Thus, the decision of the Bench taken vide order dated 19.03.2018 will not require any reconsideration. Even though after taking on record the legal heirs presently, as per direction of the Hon ble High Court. We do not see any scope of making any error in that finding on the judgment of the Coordinate Bench and in the light of fact as per direction of the Hon ble jurisdictional High Court the legal heirs are placed on record and the Bench do not want to go into reconsideration about the issue of notice u/s 148 of the Act.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Substitution of legal representatives of the deceased respondent.
2. Validity of the assessment order passed without substituting the legal representatives.
3. Merits of the assessment order and the evidence provided by the Assessing Officer (AO).

Summary:

1. Substitution of Legal Representatives:
The Hon'ble Rajasthan High Court remanded the matter to the ITAT to pass the order afresh after substituting the persons representing the estate of the deceased. The High Court noted that the order passed by the ITAT without substitution is a nullity and must be set aside. The proposed legal representatives have the right to contest the application for substitution.

2. Validity of Assessment Order:
The case involved reopening the assessment of late Shri Jethmal Binwara, with the notice served to his legal heir, Smt. Sita. The CIT(A) allowed Smt. Sita's appeal, noting that the AO failed to bring any evidence suggesting that the appellant benefited from transactions entered by the deceased. The ITAT upheld this decision, emphasizing that the AO did not issue notices to all legal heirs, rendering the reassessment null and void. The ITAT referenced the case of ACIT vs. Late Shri Mangilal, where it was held that notice u/s 148 must be issued to all legal heirs.

3. Merits of the Assessment Order:
The CIT(A) found that the AO did not conduct a proper inquiry to determine the actual beneficiary of the transactions by the deceased. The assessment was framed casually, without establishing that the legal heir received any substantial benefit. The ITAT agreed, noting that the AO's failure to provide evidence or conduct a thorough inquiry invalidated the assessment. The legal heirs of late Smt. Sita, as per the High Court's direction, were recorded, but the ITAT found no reason to reconsider the original findings.

Conclusion:
The ITAT confirmed the earlier order dated 19.03.2018, sustaining the decision that the reassessment was invalid due to the failure to notify all legal heirs and lack of evidence of any benefit received by the legal heir from the deceased's transactions. The legal heirs were recorded as per the High Court's direction, but the findings remained unchanged. The appeal of the department was dismissed, and the original order was upheld.