TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 339
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....her son, Pradeep Puri; Smt. Mohini Puri having expired on 20.01.2013. Through-out the said period, the assessee was in Delhi undergoing medical treatment at Gangaram Hospital. Her condition was critical, with she suffering from paralysis and loss of speech. The appeal was filed after the performing her last rites on 24.01.2013. This is accompanied by an affidavit by Sh. Pradeep Puri as the only legal heir of his mother, Mohini Puri, the assessee and, further, supported by a certificate dated 25.01.2013 from Gangaram Hospital (copy on record). The reasons for the delay in the filing of the appeal, duly documented, clearly bear it out to be a case of sufficient cause, beyond the control of the assessee. The delay being fully explained, was, accordingly, condoned, and the hearing in the matter proceed with. 3. The assessee has raised a legal plea on the ground that the notice u/s. 148 dated 31.3.2011 was in fact served only on 04.04.2011, i.e., beyond the period of six years from the end of the relevant year. The same is therefore out of time, invalidating the assessment proceedings and the consequent assessment. Reliance is placed on the decision in Ranjit Singh Arora v. Dy. CIT (....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... is, with respect, without reference to the provisions of law or judicial pronouncements. The assessee's claim is without any basis in law. 5.1 The principal issue in appeal is qua the assessment of Rs. 16 lacs, admittedly received by the assessee, claiming to be deposited in the bank account of Shyam Puri (HUF), i.e., the Hindu Undivided Family of the assessee's husband. The same was explained to be the sale proceeds of the sale of a shop at Srinagar belonging to the assessee's deceased son. It was explained that he was killed by the extremists on 07.02.1990, and his shop burnt in mob violence. Evidence to this effect is enclosed at PB pgs. 49-57 by way of a letter dated 08.02.1990 by the Governor, J&K at PB pg. 49. The family had to migrate to from Srinagar, leaving behind their home and hearth, to Jammu. The shop was sold during the relevant year, i.e., f.y. 2003-04, through broker/s, who had come to Jammu, and given cash for and on behalf of the buyer/s. Sh. Shyam Puri waiving his rights in the property, the entire consideration was received by the assessee as her sons' only legal heir, and which explained the returning of the capital loss of Rs. 2.52 lacs on the said sale t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....xplainable and entire deposit is made within a month of May, 2003. The AO has not pointed out as to what could be the source of deposits in installments, if not sale proceeds. From the above discussion, I am of the view that there was an adequate source of Rs. 20,30,000/- in May, 2003. 6.3 Moreover apart from above facts, on legal ground also the addition u/s. 69/69A on legal heir is not tenable. In case of C. SELVAKUMAR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER ITAT, COCHIN BENCH (2006) 6 SOT 646 (Coch) it was held that "In the absence of any material to show that legal heirs of original (deceased) assessee were in any manner involved in the transactions of fictitious fixed deposits made by original assessee, no addition under s. 69/69A could be made in the hands of legal heirs'. 5.3 Relying thereon, it was submitted by the ld. counsel for the assessee, Sh. Arora, that a similar addition in respect of sale of the late sons' Godown by the assessee for Rs. 6 lacs during the previous year relevant to AY 2005-06, was also deleted in first appeal vide order dated 30.6.2014 (PB pgs. 90-100), holding as under: 'Regarding the addition on account of bogus sale of godown at Rs. 6 lakhs, t....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... document to show that the shop was sold, much less during the relevant year, or in May, 2003, as stated. There is nothing to show that the shop in fact belonged to the assessee's late son. The subject property is not identified nor indeed the person/s buying the same, or even person/s witnessing the transaction. Rather, if such a transaction had indeed occurred, i.e., possession taken in absentia, and the assessee given cash without executing any document, it is a slur on our democracy, which predicates on the rule of law. All this, however, only implies that the capital loss claimed by the assessee (at Rs. 2.52 lacs) on the said sale cannot be allowed. And, nothing more. This is, even as observed by the Bench during hearing, as there is nothing to evidence the receipt of cash by the assessee, onus of which is on the Revenue. As such, either way, the amount cannot be assessed in the assessee's hands as unexplained receipt. That is, if the explanation of it being the sale proceeds of the (assessee's son) shop is accepted, it would, subject to validation of computation, not commented upon at any stage, lead to her incurring a capital loss by the assessee. If, on the hand, not accept....