AI Drafter 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2020 (5) TMI 115
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ding the validity of notice issued U/s 148 of the Act even though the same was invalid in the eyes of law having been issued in the name of 'deceased assessee' U/s 148 r/w 159 of the Act. The confirmation of the validity of the impugned notice being totally contrary to the provision of law and facts be quashed and consequently the impugned assessment framed U/s 143(3)/147 also kindly be quashed. 2. Alternatively , the ld. CIT(A) further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in not directing the AO to refer the matter to the DVO despite the assessee having objected to the higher valuation made by the DVO u/s 50C(2) of the Act, kindly be deleted in full. 3. The ld. AO further erred in law as well as on the facts of the case in charging interest U/s 234A, 234B, 234C & 234D of the Act and as also in withdrawing interest U/s 244A of the Act. The appellant totally denies its liability of charging and withdrawal of any such interest so charged/withdrawn, being contrary to the provision of law and facts, kindly be deleted in full." 2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the notice U/s 148 of the Act dated 27.03.2015 was issued in the name of the Smt Maga....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....evi through legal heir, Shri Laxmi Kant Choudhary and not in the name of Late Smt. Magan Devi through all the legal heirs. It was submitted that the details of the legal heirs were also available in the registered sale deed based on which reasons U/s 148 were recorded. It was further submitted that the assessment was also framed in the name of Late Smt. Magan Devi through legal heir, Shri Laxmi Kant Choudhary without impleading all the legal heirs. It was further submitted that merely because one of the L/Hs attended the proceedings does not make the defect curable u/s 292BB, particularly when he was summoned u/s 131 and called upon to attend. Non-compliance would have entailed penalty hence his participation was under pressure only but not voluntarily. Moreover, the officer taking statement advised him to be presumed the only L/H and sought his consent, vide Q 6, which is a leading Q. but then his answer does not suggest any categorical admission for other legal heirs, hence, the contention of the ld. CIT(A) that Shri Laxmi Kant had no objection if other L/Hs were not brought is also immaterial. In fact, the other L/Hs never knew of the fact of the issuance of notice and the fact ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ssessment year i.e A.Y. 2008-09 on 25.09.2009 declaring the total income (Loss) of Rs. 1,77,50,920/- wherein the assessee herself had disclosed the income from the sale of the subjected land. Copy of acknowledgment even contains the stamp of Income tax officer showing that the said return with enclosures was before the Income tax Department. Copies of the same was even filed before the AO and the CIT(A) during the course of present proceedings. Moreover, the L/H has clearly stated this fact in his Statement u/s 131 and he also submitted the copy of return along with the Computation Sheet. Further as per Ques. No. 5 of the Statements of the Laxmi Kant Choudhary (L/H), the AO has himself discussed the very same return filed the assessee in the subjected assessment year. Even in the AO's order at Pg 3, the AO has himself admitted that the return had already been filed before the ITO ward 15(1)(4), Mumbai and the ROI disclosed the sale of the land therein. It was clear from the very facts of the case that there was no escapement of income within the meaning of section 147 as the assessee had already filed the return. The very reason recorded by the AO for reopening the assessment....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d request from the assessee due to change of her residence and once such request is made, the same is examined and thereafter, where the same is found to be in order, the PAN is migrated to the new Assessing officer having jurisdiction over the new residence of the assessee. In other words, it was submitted that the change of jurisdiction cannot be a suo-moto act of the assessee merely due to change of her residence, however, the same has to be effected by the department on request being made by the assessee. It was submitted that in the instant case, no such request was made by the assessee and in the PAN data base, there continues to be old address of Ajmer where she last resided and therefore, ITO Ajmer had the valid jurisdiction over her tax matters and contention so advanced by the ld AR cannot be accepted. 9. Further, the ld DR submitted that the AO reopened the assessment proceedings after recording the due reasons and due satisfaction after following due process. The case of the assessee was reopened in the light of information/documents to the extent which were available with the AO. The material before the Assessing Officer was relevant and affords a live link or nexus....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....lds a joint account with her deceased mother and is also her legal heir, we donot find any illegality in the action of the Assessing officer where he has issued the notice u/s 148 by impleading Shri Laxmi Kant chaudhary as the legal heir of the deceased assessee. It is not a case where the notice has been issued in the name of the deceased assessee which is clearly a nullity in the eyes of law as held in various decisions relied upon by the ld AR. It is a case where the notice has been issued in the name of deceased assessee as represented by her legal heir Shri Laxmi Kant chaudhary which is clearly in compliance with the requirements of the law. Similarly, we donot find any infirmity in the assessment order where the same has been passed in the name of deceased assessee as represented by her legal heir Shri Laxmi Kant chaudhary. Where during the appellate proceedings, Shri Laxmi Kant chaudhary wishes to contest the said position stating that his statement as so taken was under pressure during the assessment proceedings, the onus is clearly on him to substantiate as to why he has not retracted from such statement at the first available opportunity and further, he has to demonstrate....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ion received from the DDIT(Inv)-1, Udaipur vide letter no.638 dated 25.03.2014 the assessee has sold a piece of land situated at 387/10(part of plot), Opp. Patel Maidan admeasuring 646.69 sq yards sold on 27.12.2007 for a consideration of Rs. 60 lacs value of which adopted at Rs. 2,36,92,362/- by the sub-Registrar. Since the assessee has not filed any return for the assessment year under consideration the income from the sale of the property has escaped assessment. "Looking to the facts mentioned above, I have reason to believe that the income to the extent of Rs. 2,36,92,362/- chargeable to tax has escaped assessment within the meaning of section 147/148 of the Act." 13. We therefore find that the information in possession of the Assessing officer was a transaction of sale of piece of land for a consideration of Rs. 60,00,000/- which was valued by the sub-Registrar at Rs. 2,36,92,362/- by the sub-Register and secondly, the said transaction was not disclosed to the Revenue as the assessee has not filed her return of income for the impugned assessment year. Basis the same, the Assessing officer had formed a belief that the income to the extent of Rs. 2,36,92,362....