TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2021 (8) TMI 283
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....3. That reassessment proceeding was initiated without serving notice u/s. 148 on all legal representatives of deceased assessee, hence assessment made by Ld. AO was bad in law and being void ab initio. 4. That since, notice u/s. 148 of the Act was issued on a dead person; hence same is invalid and unenforceable in law. 5. That since notice u/s. 143(2) of the Act never served on appellant, hence assessment made by Ld. AO is void ab initio and without jurisdiction. 6. That Ld. AO tailed to deduct cost of acquisition for arriving at capital gain on sale of property; hence addition made in assessment towards income from capital gain is illegal and against the provisions of the Act. 7. That appellant, being on....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....equential assessment order is null and void and needs to be quashed. The reliance in this respect was placed on a judgment of ITAT, Chandigarh Bench in the case of Shri Balbir Singh vs. ITO, in ITA No. 567/Chd/2016 wherein the Tribunal vide order dated 13.05.2019 allowed the appeal of the assessee under similar facts and circumstances. The ld. AR further submitted that the issue is further covered by the judgment in the following cases:- 1. Sumit Balkrishna Gupta vs. ACIT, Mumbai, [2019] 103 taxmann.com 188 (Bom). 2. Rajendra Kumar Sehgal vs. ITO, New Delhi, [2019] 101 taxmann.com 233 (Delhi). 3. Alamelu Veerappan vs. ITO, Chennai [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155 (Madras). 2.1. It was further submitted that by latest ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ase of Shri Balbir Singh vs. ITO (Supra) vide order dated 13.05.2019 has decided similar issue in favour of the assessee by holding as under: "4. The facts of the case in brief are that in this case the assessment was reopened u/s. 147 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (in short 'the Act') by way of issuance of notice dated 26.3.2013 u/s. 148 of the Act in the name of deceased assessee Shri Balbir Singh. However, admittedly the assessee had already died on 25.11.2012 i.e. much before the issuance of notice u/s. 148 of the Act. Even, the notice u/s. 148 of the Act was served through affixation and not in a regular mode of service. The notice was issued in the name of the deceased assessee. The issue, in our view, is squar....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....dational/substantial error as it is meant so as to meet the jurisdictional requirement. Therefore, both the impugned notices and the impugned assessment 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 h....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....Balbir Singh S/o Shri Dharam Singh 1535/34-D, Chandigarh. However, the alleged notice was never served by the Assessing officer on the said address despite the address of the assessee duly mentioned on the receipt which was the part and parcel of the alleged agreement to sell on the basis of which reopening of the assessment has been made. This otherwise show that even otherwise the notice is never served on the address at which the assessee actually was residing before his death. 8. In view of this, the issue is squarely covered by the decision of the Hon'ble Bombay High Court in the case of 'Sumit Balkrishna Gupta Vs. ACIT' (supra) and of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in 'Rajender Kumar Sehgal Vs. ITO' (sup....