9911796707
TMI Blog2023 (3) TMI 716X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... by the ld. PCIT. Therefore, we are of the opinion that the assessment order passed under section 143(3) of the Act is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and the ld. PCIT has rightly invoked the provisions of section 263 of the Act and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment. Thus, we find no infirmity in the order passed by the ld. PCIT.Appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed. - I.T.A. No.249/Chny/2021 - - - Dated:- 15-3-2023 - Shri V. Durga Rao, Judicial Member And Shri G. Manjunatha, Accountant Member For the Appellant : Shri Y. Sridhar, F.C.A. For the Respondent : Shri S. Senthil Kumaran, CIT ORDER PER V. DURGA RAO, JUDICIAL MEMBER: This appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order of the ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax, Chennai 3, Chennai dated 11.03.2021 relevant to the assessment year 2015-16 passed under section 263 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 [ Act in short]. 2. The appeal filed by the assessee is delayed by 64 days in filing the appeal due to outbreak of Covid-19 pandemic and accordingly, the delay in filing the appeal is condoned and admitted for adjudication. 3. The assessee ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... been issued in the name of dead person is also not protected either by provision of section 292B or 292BB of the IT Act. This is evident from Section 263 of the act which required that before proceeding can be taken up for reassessment, a notice must be served on the assessee. The assessee on whom the notice is sent must be a living person i.e., legal heir of deceased, for the same to be responded. 4. In the present case the assessee passed away on 15/12/2018, whereas the Section 263 notice was dispatched after his date of death on 18/12/2018, which fact was brought to the knowledge of Commissioner vide letter dated 24/12/2018 and the same was captured in the revision order in para no.3. 5. The CIT failed to issue a Section 263 notice against the legal representative of the deceased assessee as provided in Sec.159(2)(b), which is evident from the revision order. 6. It seems that Audit objection may be the root cause for issue of show-cause notice u/s 263 of the IT Act. However, it is submitted that it is almost a settled law that on the basis of audit objection or even recommendation of the Assessing Officer, provisions u/s 263 cannot be invoked. It is the prerogativ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r dated 05.03.2020 and submitted that all the details were filed before the Assessing Officer and the Assessing Officer, after examining the details, the assessment was completed under section 143(3) of the Act by making addition of ₹.33,46,680/-. 4.2 After considering the reply of the assessee, the ld. PCIT has pointed out that the Assessing Officer has not made any enquiry in respect of LTCG offered by the assessee of ₹.12,00,00,000/- and the market value of the property sold as per the sale deed at ₹.16,80,00,000/- and also in respect of amount recovered from M/s. Harmony Residences Pvt. Ltd. of ₹.1.05 crores was not examined by the Assessing Officer. Therefore, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of Revenue and directed the Assessing Officer to redo the assessment afresh after giving an opportunity to the assessee. 5. On being aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the Tribunal. The first ground raised by the assessee is that the order passed by the ld. PCIT dated 11.03.2021 is an order passed against a dead person and it is an invalid order. In this case, the assess ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... it came to the notice of the ld. PCIT, the ld. PCIT has issued a letter dated 24.01.2019 and 14.07.2019 directing the assessee s representative to file legal heir certificate and death certificate. Not only that, the ld. PCIT issued a letter dated 21.02.2020 to the wife of the assessee directing to appear in person or through authorized representative. Finally, the ld. PCIT passed the order under section 263 of the Act on assessee s legal heir. Therefore, the argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee that the order passed on death person is not correct. We find that by following entire procedure, the ld. PCIT has passed the revision order under section 263 of the Act dated 11.03.2021 is in accordance with law. 8. One more argument of the ld. Counsel for the assessee is that the notice issued by the ld. PCIT dated 21.02.2020 is not a statutory notice and not only that it is issued only one legal heir and the ld. PCIT was suppose to issue notice to all the legal heirs. In this context, we find that the ld. PCIT after issuing a notice to the legitimate legal heir viz., wife of the assessee Smt. U. Ambika, concluded the revision order under section 263 of the Act is a valid orde ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
