TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (6) TMI 913
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... 2. That the Ld. CIT(A) has erred in holding that the notice u/s 148 was legally valid and has failed to consider the fact that the notice u/s 148 having been issued to the dead person and, as such, the proceedings are void. 3. Notwithstanding the above ground of appeal, there was no proper and valid service of notice u/s 148. 4. Notwithstanding the above said ground of appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the 50% share of capital gain at Rs. 76,12,500/-. 5. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consideration on the basis of so called alleged sale agreement, which is not reliable at all. 6. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal, which was legal ground of appeal and which ought to have admitted in view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs. National Thermal Plant as reported in 229 ITR 383. 7. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 3. At the outset, the Ld. Co....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sment order required to be quashed and set aside. Similarly, the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of 'Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vs. ITO' [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi) held that where the notice seeking to reopen assessment was issued in the name of deceased assessee, since she could not have been participated in reassessment proceedings, provisions of section 292BB were not applicable to the assessee's case and as a consequence, reassessment proceedings deserved to be quashed. 5. At this stage, the Ld. DR has pointed out that the LR of the assessee should have promptly come forward to apprise the Assessing officer that the assessee had died so that notice could have been issued in the name of legal representative of the assessee. We do not find any force in the above contention of the Ld. DR. as noticed above, the notice was not served through registered post / or by regular mode of service. The notice in this case was allegedly served through substituted mode of the service i.e. by affixation of the same at the door of the house of the assessee. Further, the report of service through affixation have not been witnessed by any person. Had the Income-tax officials a....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....round of appeal, the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in assessing the 50% share of capital gain at Rs. 76,12,500/-. 4. That the CIT(A) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer in adopting the sale consideration on the basis of so called alleged sale agreement, which is not reliable at all. 5. That the Ld. CIT (A) has erred in not admitting the additional ground of appeal, which was legal ground of appeal and which ought to have admitted view of the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of CIT Vs National Thermal Plant as reported in 229 ITR 383. 6. That the Appellant craves leave to add or amend the grounds of appeal before the appeal is finally heard or disposed off. 11. The Ld. Counsel for the assessee stated at Bar that as per the instructions of his client, he does not press ground No. 5, this ground is, therefore, dismissed as not pressed. 12. The assessee, in this appeal, apart from contesting the additions made by the lower authorities on merits has also taken the legal ground regarding the validity of the assessment framed u/s 147 of the Act on the ground that there was n....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....there. The Ld. Counsel has further submitted that the old address of Village Bhattian, Tehsil Khanna at which the notice was allegedly served / sent to the assessee has not been mentioned in the agreement to sell in question. Though in the front part of the agreement, the address of his deceased father Shri Balbir Singh has been mentioned as H. No. 2208C, Phase-7, SAS Nagar, Mohali, however, since the said house itself was the subject matter of sale, the Assessing officer served the alleged notice / letter at the old address / village address of the assessee at Village Bhattian, Tehsil Khanna. However, the other address of the assessee and his father was available in the agreement to sell itself i.eon the receipt printed on the back side of the stamp paper at which the Assessing officer never served notice u/s 148 of the Act. The Ld. counsel has invited our attention to the receipt which has been printed on the back of the stamp papers upon which the alleged agreement to sell has been executed, wherein, the name and address of the seller i.e. Shri Balbir Singh, the deceased father of the assessee, has been mentioned as Shri Balbir Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh 1535/34-D, Chandi....