9911796707
TMI Blog2021 (10) TMI 733X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r but continued the proceedings in the name of his legal heir. During the course of proceedings before us the ld. DR was directed to file a copy of notice u/s. 148 and which he has filed after the hearing. From the copy of notice u/s. 148 find that such notice dated 24.02.2014 has been issued in the name of Shri Ajit Jaiswal who was not in existence at the time of issue of notice u/s. 148 as he had died on 26.05.2010. Such notice issued in the name of a dead person is not enforceable and cannot be said to be valid notice and further I find that no notice u/s. 148 has been issued in the name of the legal heir of the assessee. -Decided in favour of assessee. X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ground taken by the ld. AR is not justified and which may be dismissed. 4. I have heard the rival parties and have perused the material placed on record. This is an undisputed fact that the assessment order has been passed in the name of legal heir, Smt. Priyamvada Jaiswal. The statement of facts filed before ld. CIT(A) clearly mentions that Shri Ajit Jaiswal had died on 26.05.2010. It is also a fact that the Assessing Officer in his assessment order himself has noted that the assessee had expired and even after having come to know about the fact of having assessee been dead he did not drop the proceedings against him and issued fresh notice u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of legal heir but continued the proceedings in the name of his lega ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... m the material on record. The coordinate Bench of Chandigarh in the case of Shri Balbir Singh vs. ITO (Supra) vide order dated 13.05.2019 has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by holding as under: "4. The facts of the case in brief are that in this case the assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by way of issuance of notice dated 26.3.2013 u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of deceased assessee Shri Balbir Singh. However, admittedly the assessee had already died on 25.11.2012 i.e. much before the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Even, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served through affixation and not in a regular mode of service. The notice was issued in the name ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ection 292B of the Act cannot be invoked to correct a foundational/substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, both the impugned notices and the impugned assessment order required to be quashed and set aside. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vs. ITO' [2019] 101 taxmann. com 233 (Delhi) held that where the notice seeking to reopen assessment was issued in the name of deceased assessee, since she could not have been participated in reassessment proceedings, provisions of section 292BB were not applicable to the assessee's case and as a consequence, reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 5. At this stage, the Ld. DR has poin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been mentioned as Shri Balbir Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh 1535/34-D, Chandigarh. However, the alleged notice was never served by the Assessing officer on the said address despite the address of the assessee duly mentioned on the receipt which was the part and parcel of the alleged agreement to sell on the basis of which reopening of the assessment has been made. This otherwise show that even otherwise the notice is never served on the address at which the assessee actually was residing before his death. 8. In view of this, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. ACIT' (supra) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Rajender Kumar Sehgal V ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
