9911796707
TMI Blog2025 (1) TMI 613X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... gs, the assessee was never apprised with any tangible/incriminating material, through which serious allegations had been made in the present case. We find that the provisions of Section 159(6) of the Act, provides that the liability of a legal representative is limited to the extent of assets acquired by the legal representative. In the instant case, the Revenue has not made a case that the assessee received any estate from her late husband. The action of the Revenue, therefore, to fasten the assessee with the liability of the business dealings conducted by the M/s. Ronnie Finance Limited is neither legally permissible nor just. Accordingly, we do not find any reason to interfere with the well-reasoned decision of the ld. CIT(A) and direct the AO to delete the penalties levied u/s 271D and 271E - Decided against revenue. - Shri Challa Nagendra Prasad, Judicial Member, And Shri Naveen Chandra, Accountant Member For the Assessee : Shri Ankit Garg, Adv, Shri Shantanu, Adv For the Department : Shri Dayainder Singh Sidhu, CIT-DR ORDER PER BENCH:- This is a bunch of eight appeals filed by the Revenue against separate orders of the ld. CIT(A), New Delhi U/S 271E/271D of the Income-tax A ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... the assessee explained the factual matrix of the case and stated that the acceptance and lending of the so called amount was undertaken by the company M/s Ronnie Finance Ltd where the husband of the assessee Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva was a director. It is the say of the ld AR that the assessee was not a director nor a shareholder of the company M/s Ronnie Finance Ltd nor the assessee received any asset from the estate of Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva. The ld AR vehemently argued that the assessee has not committed any violation of section 26SS and 269ST and therefore, the assessee cannot be fastened with the liability of violation of provisions of section 269SS and 269ST committed by the company M/s Ronnie Finance Limited. 11. Per contra, the ld. DR relied upon the orders of the Assessing Officer. 12. We have heard the rival submissions and have carefully perused the materials on record and the conclusion arrived at by the ld. CIT(A). We find that the ld. CIT(A) has given his findings and determination on the levy of penalty u/s 271D and 271E separately and has followed the same for all the disputed asst. years. The CIT(A) decision for AY 2013-14, which is followed in all the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and accordingly held that the appellant was the successor of her husband. In the present penalty proceedings, the Range Head has followed the position taken by the Assessing Officer during the assessment proceedings regarding the status of the appellant. 12. The appellant may be the heir of Late Shri Nimit Kumar Sachdeva. But for the purposes of Income-tax, the tax can be levied only on the legal representative, whose definition is contained in Civil Procedure Code. However, the legal representative is to be decided on the basis of provisions of 2(11) of Code of Civil Procedure and not as per the Hindu Succession Act. 13. As per the Hindu Succession Act, the appellant has the right to claim over the estate of her late husband. As per the Code of Civil Procedure, the appellant can be made legal representative only if she has actually received any estate of her late husband. 14. Thus, the Assessing Officer during the course of assessment proceedings or the Range Head during the course of present penalty proceedings has not discussed or established as to how the appellant in the absence of any evidence to show that the estate devolving to her is legal representative within the meanin ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability. 17. Till date, the Assessing Officer has not brought on record any evidence/finding that could establish that any portion of deceased person's estate was acquired or devolved or inherited by the Appellant. 18. In the case of CIT vs Dalumal Shyamumal (2005) 276 ITR 62 (MP), It was held that Where an assessee dies, pending any assessment proceedings, it is the duty of the Assessing Officer to ensure compliance of section 159(2) (le. bring the legal representative on record) before passing the orders. Hence, the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer without bringing the legal representative on record was not justified. 19. In the case of the CIT v Prabhawati Gupta (1998) 231 ITR 188 (MP), it was held that In case of death of the assessee before proceedings for assessment are completed, legal representatives must be brought on record otherwise the assessment is void ab initio 20. In the case of C. Naveen Kumar vs. ITO reported in [2019] 108 taxmann.com 219 (Madras) the court has held that, wherein assessee did not inherit anything from his father and, moreover, he had nothing to do with his ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
