9911796707
TMI Blog2024 (6) TMI 1393X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Maruti Suzuki India Ltd 2019 (7) TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] ] has held that assessment order passed in the name of non-existing entity would be without jurisdiction and was to be set aside. In the instant case, the CIT after having knowledge of death of Nirmal Kant Saini was mandatorily required to pass an order in the name of legal heir of the deceased, whereas, the order was passed in the name of Nirmal Kant Saini i.e. in the name of a dead person. The order passed in the name of a dead person is illegal and bad in law. Hence, any subsequent proceedings arising there from are non-est. Appeal of the assessee is allowed. - SHRI VIKAS AWASTHY, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI AVDHESH KUMAR MISHRA, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER For the Appellant : Shri Salil Ag ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... me of a dead person. He pointed that the assessee Shri Nirmal Kant Saini died on 21.01.2013, the assessee informed about the death of Shri Nirmal Kant Saini to CIT for the first time on 12.02.2014 and in all subsequent communications i.e. dated 24.02.2014, 12.03.2014 and finally on 20.03.2014, the assessee has been mentioning about demise of Nirmal Kant Saini. The aforesaid communications are at page 25 to 28 of the paper book. Despite the fact that CIT was informed about the death of Nirmal Kant Saini and the CIT has noted this fact in his order, still the CIT passed order u/s. 263 of the Act dated 21.03.2014 in the name of a dead person. He submitted that any order passed by Income Tax Authority in the name of dead person is non-est. 4. P ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... der in pursuance of which the assessment order has been passed is itself non-est, any subsequent proceedings arising there from are vitiated and are liable to be quashed. 6. On merits of the addition, the ld. Counsel for the assessee submitted that the assessee had filed return of income for impugned assessment year on 29.10.2099 declaring total income of Rs. 4,04,200/-. The AO issued notice dated 21.08.2010 u/s. 143(2) of the Act, raising various queries. The assessee vide letter dated 20.06.2011 furnished reply to notice, the said replies are at pages 2 3 of the paper book. The assessee furnished a supplementary reply to notice on 27.06.2011, the same is at page 4 of the paper book. The assessee in continuation to his earlier replies furn ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... oparceners who had sold the property in order to settle the dispute paid Rs. 75,00,000/- to the assessee. A memorandum of understanding to this effect was entered between the parties on 22.04.2008. The said memorandum of understanding is at page no. 150 to 156 of the paper book. The ld. Counsel also referred to family tree at page no. 107 of the paper book to show the relation between the assessee and Roop Kant. The assessee thereafter filed an application for withdrawal of the civil suit before the Hon ble High Court. The application of assessee was allowed by the Hon ble High Court vide order dated 24.08.2008. 7. Per contra, Ld. DR vehemently defended the impugned order on merits and prayed for dismissing appeal of assessee. The ld. DR po ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... rder non-est, the subsequent proceedings arising there from are vitiated. Therefore, we do not find any infirmity in the application filed by the assessee for admission of additional ground challenging validity of the order passed u/s 263 of the Act on a jurisdictional issue. Thus, the additional ground raised by the assessee is admitted for adjudication on merits. 10. In additional ground of appeal the assessee has assailed validity of order passed u/s 263 of the Act in the name of a dead person. The ld. Counsel for assessee has pointed that the assessee has informed about the death of Nirmal Kant Saini to the CIT vide letter date 12.02.2014, 24.02.2014, 12.03.2014 and 20.03.2014. The said communications are at pages 25 to 28 of the paper ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r passed in the name of non-existing entity would be without jurisdiction and was to be set aside. In the instant case, the CIT after having knowledge of death of Nirmal Kant Saini was mandatorily required to pass an order in the name of legal heir of the deceased, whereas, the order was passed in the name of Nirmal Kant Saini i.e. in the name of a dead person. The order passed in the name of a dead person is illegal and bad in law. Hence, any subsequent proceedings arising there from are non-est. Since, the assessment order dated 23.03.2015 stem from the order held to be bad in law, the said assessment order and the subsequent proceedings arising there from are vitiated. In the result, assessee succeeds on additional ground of appeal. 11. ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
