9911796707
TMI Blog2020 (3) TMI 1269X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the Ld. CIT has set aside the assessment order passed u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263, with a direction to redo the assessment after giving opportunity to the assessee - order u/s. 143(3) dated 16.09.2014 was set aside by order of 263. For initiation of reassessment proceedings, the AO required to issue notice u/s. 143(2) which the AO has issued in the name of dead person. Initiation of proceedings u/s. 143(2) on a dead person is bad in law and makes the assessment also invalid. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the notice u/s. 143[2] was issued on a dead person and the order u/s. 263 was also passed on a dead person. Therefore, taking consistent view, we hold that the issue of notice u/s. 143[2] on a dead person is invalid and render ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessment made on 16.09.2014 with a direction to redo the assessment in accordance with the procedure and law after affording the assessee, reasonable opportunity by an order dated 20.10.2016. For giving effect to the order of the Ld. Pr. CIT, the AO had issued notice u/s. 143(2) on Devarasetty Venkata Subba Rao who was expired by the time of issue of notice and the notice was served on the legal heir, Mr. Ravi Kumar. In response to the notice the Ld. AR of the assessee appeared and filed written submissions and the AO completed the assessment u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 in the name of Sri D. Ravi Kumar, legal heir of Late Devarasetty Venkata Subba Rao by an order u/s. 143(3) r.w.s. 263 on 26.12.2016 and assessed the total income at ₹ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dated 26.12.2016. The Ld. AR relied on the decision of this Tribunal in the case of Sri Aemala Venkateswara Rao vs. ITO, Guntur in I.T.A. No. 227/Viz/2017 dated 03.03.2019 and Late Tanguturi Venkata Subbayya vs. ITO, Palakol in I.T.A. No. 226/Viz/2018 dated 28.06.2019, wherein the Tribunal held that the notice issued on a dead person u/s. 148 was invalid and accordingly quashed the notices u/s. 148. Since the facts are identical, the Ld. AR requested to quash the notice u/s. 143(2) and consequent assessments. 6. On the other hand, the Ld. DR supported the orders of the lower authorities and argued that issue of notice on a dead person cannot make the assessment invalid, since, the legal representative has responded to the notice and part ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s the assessment also invalid. This view is supported by the decision of this Tribunal relied upon by the Ld. AR in the cases of Aemala Venkateswara Rao [supra] and Late Tanguturi Venkata Subbayya [supra]. For the sake of clarity and convenience, we extract relevant part of the order of this Tribunal in para No. 7.1 in the case of Late Tanguturi Venkata Subbayya vs. ITO, Palakol [supra] which reads as under: 7.1. In the instant case, there is no dispute that the assessee had expired and notice was issued on dead person. Though subsequently, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued in the name of his wife and the same cannot validate the invalid notice. The notice issued on a dead person is held to be invalid as discussed earlier in this order. On ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
