TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2019 (10) TMI 827
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Even otherwise, the assessing officer has erred in passing order u/s. 147 in the name of the dead person when assessee has died on 02.02.2013 while assessment order was passed on 31.03.2014. 3. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) has erred in confirming the action of the Assessing Officer by sustaining the addition of Rs. 1,72,1007- out of the total addition of Rs. 1,96,1007-on account of alleged income from undisclosed sources. 4. It is therefore prayed that the above addition made by assessing Officer and confirmed by learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) may please be deleted. 5. Appellant craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal. 3. The assessee in the first ground of appeal has challenged the validity of the assessment framed under section 147 of the Act on the ground that there was no reason to believe that the income of the assessee has escaped assessment. 4. The learned AR for the assessee at the time of hearing did not advance any argument on the issue raised in ground No. 1 of appeal. Therefore we dismiss ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....suance of notice as well as reopening of the assessment. SLP of this judgment was dismissed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Hon'ble High Court has considered judgment referred to it with regard to impact of passing assessment in the name of deceased person. Hon'ble High Court concurred with these decisions and held that if assessment order was passed in the name of non-existing person, then it will be illegal. It is imperative upon me to take note of discussion made by the Hon'ble High Court: "17. In the context of the present writ petition, the aforesaid ratio is a complete answer to the contention raised on validity of the notice under Section 147/148 of the Act as it was addressed to the erstwhile company and not to the limited liability partnership. There was no doubt and debate that the notice was meant for the petitioner and no one else. Legal error and mistake was made in addressing the notice. Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated 11.04.2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the Company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had und....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... Dimension Apparels Private Limited, (2015) 370 ITR 288 (Del) and Commissioner of Income Tax v. Intel Technology India (P.) Ltd., (2016) 380 ITR 272 (Kar) follow the ratio and decision in the case of Spice Infotainment Ltd. (supra), as assessment orders had been passed in the name of the non-existing assessee. These cases are therefore distinguishable. 21. Our attention was drawn to Parashuram Pottery Works Co. Ltd. v. ITO, Circle I, Ward A, Rajkot, (1977) 106 ITR 1 (SC) which records that the Assessing Officer entrusted with the task of calculating and realising tax should familiarise themselves with the relevant provisions and become well versed with the law on the subject. This is a salutary advise. Indeed there have been lapses and faults resulting in the present litigation. Notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was issued at the end of the limitation period. Noticeably, Assessment Order for the assessment year 2013-2014 was passed on 31.03.2016, one year earlier. Second lapse is also apparent. Despite correctly noting the background, notice under Section 147/148 of the Act was not addressed in the correct name and even the PAN Number mentioned was incorrect. Nevertheless, ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... at the accounts and banking transactions, and after the demise of the assessee many times assessee's daughter approached the bank to seek the details, but the bank refused to give the details. 13. Moreover, the AO has not given sufficient time to produce the evidence as the assessment was time barring. 14. The assessee further submitted that the assessee was an agriculturist and derived his income from agriculture activities. The assessee further submitted that the land was taken from the relatives for the cultivation. Accordingly, the assessee claimed that the cash was deposited for Rs. 25,100/- in saving bank account from the sale of agriculture produce and the same has been treated as agriculture income. 14.1 The assessee also submitted that the "Peak Credit and Telescoping Theory" was not considered by the AO while passing the assessment order even though these are recognized under the Income Tax Laws. Accordingly, the assessee requested to apply the peak credit theory. 15. The Ld. CIT (A) after considering the submission of the assessee made certain observations as detailed under: 15.1 The document produced/submitted could also be produced/submitted very well at the tim....