9911796707
TMI Blog2019 (2) TMI 2119X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ARs. For the Respondent : Shri Rajeev Gubgotra, DR. ORDER PER SANDEEP GOSAIN, JUDICIAL MEMBER: The present two Appeals have been filed by the assessee against the order of Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-50, Mumbai, dated 01.02.17 for AY 2009-10 and AY 2010-11 respectively. 2. Since the issues raised in both the appeals are identical, therefore, for the sake of convenience, these appeals are clubbed, heard and disposed of by this consolidated order. I.T.A. No. 2950/Mum/2017 (AY 2009-10) 3. First of all we take up assessee s appeal in I.T.A. No. 2950/Mum/2017 (AY 2009-10). 4. At the very outset, Ld. AR appearing on behalf of the assessee drawn our attention to letter dated 19.11.18 filed for seeking admission of additional ground, whic ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ant be allowed to raise additional grounds. 6. On the other hand Ld. DR submitted that the application dated 19.11.18 is misconceived and is liable to be dismissed. 7. After having heard the counsels on this application, we are of the view that the additional grounds raised by the assessee are purely legal in nature and all the necessary facts required for adjudication are already on the record and thus, no new evidences are required to be brought on record. Even otherwise, these grounds goes to the roots of the case, therefore keeping in view the principle laid down by Hon ble Supreme Court in the case of NTPC Vrs CIT 229 ITR 383, Jute Corporation of India Vrs. CIT 187 ITR 688 (SC) and Ahmedabad Electricity Ltd. Vrs. CIT 199 ITR 351 (Bom) ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e notice. On this context, we have perused the cited judgment of the coordinate Bench of ITAT in the case ACIT vrs. Vijay Kumar Agrawal (ITA No. 1539/Kol/17) wherein the Coordinate Bench of ITAT had held that the notice initiating penalty proceedings was issued by the AO in the name of assessee, who had already expired, which is not enforceable in law. Since this contention is duly supported by the decision of Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamelu Verappan vrs. ITO (2018) 95 taxman.com 155 (Mad), we accept the same and hold that the penalty proceedings initiated against the dead person was not enforceable by law and the penalty imposed in pursuance of such invalid initiation is not sustainable. 11. Further, the Hon ble Madras Hig ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
