Just a moment...

Top
Help
×

By creating an account you can:

Logo TaxTMI
>
Call Us / Help / Feedback

Contact Us At :

E-mail: [email protected]

Call / WhatsApp at: +91 99117 96707

For more information, Check Contact Us

FAQs :

To know Frequently Asked Questions, Check FAQs

Most Asked Video Tutorials :

For more tutorials, Check Video Tutorials

Submit Feedback/Suggestion :

Email :
Please provide your email address so we can follow up on your feedback.
Category :
Description :
Min 15 characters0/2000
Make Most of Text Search
  1. Checkout this video tutorial: How to search effectively on TaxTMI.
  2. Put words in double quotes for exact word search, eg: "income tax"
  3. Avoid noise words such as : 'and, of, the, a'
  4. Sort by Relevance to get the most relevant document.
  5. Press Enter to add multiple terms/multiple phrases, and then click on Search to Search.
  6. Text Search
  7. The system will try to fetch results that contains ALL your words.
  8. Once you add keywords, you'll see a new 'Search In' filter that makes your results even more precise.
  9. Text Search
Add to...
You have not created any category. Kindly create one to bookmark this item!
Create New Category
Hide
Title :
Description :
❮❮ Hide
Default View
Expand ❯❯
Close ✕
🔎 Case Laws - Adv. Search
TEXT SEARCH:

Press 'Enter' to add multiple search terms. Rules for Better Search

Search In:
Main Text + AI Text
  • Main Text
  • Main Text + AI Text
  • AI Text
  • Title Only
  • Head Notes
  • Citation
Party Name: ?
Party name / Appeal No.
Law:
---- All Laws----
  • ---- All Laws----
  • GST
  • Income Tax
  • Benami Property
  • Customs
  • Corporate Laws
  • Securities / SEBI
  • Insolvency & Bankruptcy
  • FEMA
  • Law of Competition
  • PMLA
  • Service Tax
  • Central Excise
  • CST, VAT & Sales Tax
  • Wealth tax
  • Indian Laws
Courts: ?
Select Court or Tribunal
---- All Courts ----
  • ---- All Courts ----
  • Supreme Court - All
  • Supreme Court
  • SC Orders / Highlights
  • High Court
  • Appellate Tribunal
  • Tribunal / NCLT & Others
  • Appellate authority for Advance Ruling
  • Advance Ruling Authority
  • National Financial Reporting Authority
  • Competition Commission of India
  • ANTI-PROFITEERING AUTHORITY
  • Commission
  • Central Government
  • Board
  • DISTRICT/ SESSIONS Court
  • Commissioner / Appellate Authority
  • Other
In Favour Of: New
---- In Favour Of ----
  • ---- In Favour Of ----
  • Assessee
  • In favour of Assessee
  • Partly in favour of Assessee
  • Revenue
  • In favour of Revenue
  • Partly in favour of Revenue
  • Appellant / Petitioner
  • In favour of Appellant
  • In favour of Petitioner
  • In favour of Respondent
  • Partly in favour of Appellant
  • Partly in favour of Petitioner
  • Others
  • Neutral (alternate remedy)
  • Neutral (Others)
Landmark: ?
Where case is referred in other cases
---- All Cases ----
  • ---- All Cases ----
  • Referred in >= 3 Cases
  • Referred in >= 4 Cases
  • Referred in >= 5 Cases
  • Referred in >= 10 Cases
  • Referred in >= 15 Cases
  • Referred in >= 25 Cases
  • Referred in >= 50 Cases
  • Referred in >= 100 Cases
Situ: ?
State Name or City name of the Court.
Eg: Madhya Pradesh, Orissa, Hyderabad

Use comma for multiple locations.

AY/FY: New?
Enter only the year or year range (e.g., 2025, 2025–26, or 2025–2026).
Include Word: ?
Searches for this word in Main (Whole) Text
Exclude Word: ?
This word will not be present in Main (Whole) Text
From Date: ?
Date of order
To Date:

---------------- For section wise search only -----------------


Statute Type: ?
This filter alone wont work. 1st select a law > statute > section from below filter
New
---- All Statutes----
  • ---- All Statutes ----
  • Select the law first, to see the statutes list
Sections: ?
Select a statute to see the list of sections here
New
---- All Sections ----
  • ---- All Sections ----
  • Select the statute first, to see the sections list

Accuracy Level ~ 90%



TMI Citation:
Year
  • Year
  • 2026
  • 2025
  • 2024
  • 2023
  • 2022
  • 2021
  • 2020
  • 2019
  • 2018
  • 2017
  • 2016
  • 2015
  • 2014
  • 2013
  • 2012
  • 2011
  • 2010
  • 2009
  • 2008
  • 2007
  • 2006
  • 2005
  • 2004
  • 2003
  • 2002
  • 2001
  • 2000
  • 1999
  • 1998
  • 1997
  • 1996
  • 1995
  • 1994
  • 1993
  • 1992
  • 1991
  • 1990
  • 1989
  • 1988
  • 1987
  • 1986
  • 1985
  • 1984
  • 1983
  • 1982
  • 1981
  • 1980
  • 1979
  • 1978
  • 1977
  • 1976
  • 1975
  • 1974
  • 1973
  • 1972
  • 1971
  • 1970
  • 1969
  • 1968
  • 1967
  • 1966
  • 1965
  • 1964
  • 1963
  • 1962
  • 1961
  • 1960
  • 1959
  • 1958
  • 1957
  • 1956
  • 1955
  • 1954
  • 1953
  • 1952
  • 1951
  • 1950
  • 1949
  • 1948
  • 1947
  • 1946
  • 1945
  • 1944
  • 1943
  • 1942
  • 1941
  • 1940
  • 1939
  • 1938
  • 1937
  • 1936
  • 1935
  • 1934
  • 1933
  • 1932
  • 1931
  • 1930
Volume
  • Volume
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6
  • 7
  • 8
  • 9
  • 10
  • 11
  • 12
TMI
Example : 2024 (6) TMI 204
Sort By: ?
In Sort By 'Default', exact matches for text search are shown at the top, followed by the remaining results in their regular order.
RelevanceDefaultDate
TMI Citation
    No Records Found
    ❯❯
    MaximizeMaximizeMaximize
    0 / 200
    Expand Note
    Add to Folder

    No Folders have been created

      +

      Are you sure you want to delete "My most important" ?

      NOTE:

      Case Laws
      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Results Found:
      AI TextQuick Glance by AIHeadnote
      Show All SummariesHide All Summaries
      No Records Found

      Case Laws

      Back

      All Case Laws

      Showing Results for :
      Reset Filters
      Showing
      Records
      ExpandCollapse
        No Records Found

        Case Laws

        Back

        All Case Laws

        Showing Results for : Reset Filters
        Case ID :

        1985 (11) TMI 89 - AT - Income Tax

        📋
        Contents
        Note

        Note

        -

        Bookmark

        print

        Print

        Login to TaxTMI
        Verification Pending

        The Email Id has not been verified. Click on the link we have sent on

        Didn't receive the mail? Resend Mail

        Don't have an account? Register Here

        Tribunal annuls assessment due to incomplete legal representation, stresses full estate representation The Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the assessment as the assessment proceedings did not include all legal representatives, and the ITO did not ...
                      Cases where this provision is explicitly mentioned in the judgment/order text; may not be exhaustive. To view the complete list of cases mentioning this section, Click here.

                          Tribunal annuls assessment due to incomplete legal representation, stresses full estate representation

                          The Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the assessment as the assessment proceedings did not include all legal representatives, and the ITO did not prove that Laxmi Chand managed the deceased's entire estate. The Tribunal stressed the necessity to annul such assessments rather than simply directing fresh proceedings, citing the requirement for full representation of the deceased's estate by all legal representatives.




                          Issues Involved:
                          1. Validity of the assessment made on a deceased person.
                          2. Error in not quashing the assessment by the Commissioner (Appeals).
                          3. Error in setting aside the assessment and directing the ITO to make a fresh assessment after hearing the assessee.

                          Issue-wise Detailed Analysis:

                          1. Validity of the Assessment Made on a Deceased Person:
                          The primary issue was whether the assessment made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) on the deceased individual, Puran Chand, was valid. The assessment for the year 1975-76 was initially completed on 23-9-1978 in the name of Puran Chand Laxmi Chand, despite Puran Chand having died on 24-3-1974. The return of income for this year was filed by Laxmi Chand, one of Puran Chand's sons, on 16-6-1975. The assessment was later canceled upon an application under section 146 of the Income-tax Act, 1961. A fresh assessment proceeding was initiated, and a draft assessment order was prepared, still showing the name of the assessee as Puran Chand Laxmi Chand. The ITO completed the assessment on 24-9-1981, showing the name of the assessee as 'Shri Laxmi Chand legal heir of late Shri Puran Chand.' The Tribunal held that the assessment should have included all legal representatives, and since it did not, the assessment was a nullity.

                          2. Error in Not Quashing the Assessment by the Commissioner (Appeals):
                          The Commissioner (Appeals) did not accept the assessee's claim that the assessment was void ab initio. The Commissioner (Appeals) reasoned that the original assessment made under section 144 was not on a dead person but in the trade name of Puran Chand Laxmi Chand, and business was being carried on in that name. The Commissioner (Appeals) also noted that even if the original assessment was made on a dead person, the assessee could have appealed at that stage but did not. The Tribunal, however, found that the Commissioner (Appeals) erred in not quashing the assessment, as the assessment should have been made by impleading all legal representatives, and the failure to do so invalidated the assessment.

                          3. Error in Setting Aside the Assessment and Directing the ITO to Make a Fresh Assessment:
                          The Commissioner (Appeals) set aside the assessment and directed the ITO to make a fresh assessment after hearing the assessee. The Tribunal found that this decision was incorrect. The Tribunal referred to several judicial precedents, including the Gauhati High Court's decision in Jai Prakash Singh v. CIT, which held that if the estate of a deceased is to be assessed, it must be fully represented by all legal representatives. The Tribunal concluded that the ITO failed to show that Laxmi Chand was managing the entire estate, and thus, the assessment made in his name alone was a nullity. The Tribunal annulled the assessment, emphasizing that the appellate authorities cannot nullify the provisions of limitation for assessment by merely setting aside the assessment and directing fresh proceedings.

                          Conclusion:
                          The Tribunal allowed the appeal, annulling the assessment on the grounds that all legal representatives were not impleaded in the assessment proceedings, and the ITO failed to establish that Laxmi Chand represented the entire estate of the deceased. The Tribunal emphasized the legal duty to annul such assessments and not merely set them aside for fresh proceedings.
                          Full Summary is available for active users!
                          Note: It is a system-generated summary and is for quick reference only.

                          Topics

                          ActsIncome Tax
                          No Records Found