2005 (1) TMI 65

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....Income-tax (Appeals) who had declared the reassessment proceedings as invalid on the ground that these had not been initiated against all the legal heirs of the deceased respondent?" Puran Singh (predecessor of non-petitioners) was an income-tax/wealth-tax/gift-tax, assessee. He had 232 acres of land in village Dhumsi, District Kurukshetra. He transferred a major portion of his land to his six sons through partition, etc., and at the time of death in January, 1998, he had only about 27 acres of agricultural land. His taxable income included a share in the profits of a firm of commission agents, namely, M/s. Puran Singh Hukam Singh. For the assessment years 1979-80, 1985-86 and 1986-87, the Assessing Officer completed the assessment under....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

....order of the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) we are of the view that no interference is warranted in the consolidated order passed by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals). The learned Departmental Representative in her arguments placed reliance on the decisions reported in Daya Ram v. Shyam Sundari, AIR 1965 SC 1049; V. Ramanathan v. CIT [1963] 49 ITR 881 (Mad); CIT v. Sumantbhai C. Munshaw [1981] 128 ITR 142 (Guj) and Chooharmal Wadhuram v. CIT [1971] 80 ITR 360 (Guj), contending that the respondents had not raised any objection during the course of the assessment proceedings about the legal heirs. It was further stated that fresh evidence had been admitted by the Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) without confronting the Assess....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... Bindal, learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the record. In CIT v. Jai Prakash Singh [1996] 219 ITR 737, the Supreme Court considered a question similar to the one referred by the Tribunal and held: "An omission to serve or any defect in the service of notices provided by procedural provisions does not efface or erase the liability to pay tax where such liability is created by distinct substantive provisions (charging sections). Any such omission, or defect may render the order irregular-depending upon the nature of the provision not complied with-but certainly not void or illegal." The facts of that case were that the assessee had not filed returns for the assessment years 1965-66 to 1967-68. He died on April 16, 1967, ....

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

Full Text of the Document

X X   X X   Extracts   X X   X X

.... of the deceased S did not invalidate the assessment orders of the Income-tax Officer relating to the assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67 and 1967-68 and that it was at best an irregularity for which the Appellate Assistant Commissioner was justified in setting aside the assessments and it was not a case fit for cancellation of the assessments." The same view has been expressed by different Highs Courts in Vijay Sarin v. ITO [1993] 202 ITR 249 (Delhi) ; CIT v. Chandra Mohan Verma [2000] 244 ITR 430 (All) and CIT v. Smt. Pushpa Devi [2001] 250 ITR 495 (Raj). The facts of the case in hand show that the notice of reassessment proceedings was served on four sons of the late Shri Puran Singh. One of them, namely, Hukum Singh, filed the retur....