AI OCR 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2024 (6) TMI 27
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....013-14. The assessee has assailed the impugned order on the following grounds of appeal: "1. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, very basis of reasons recorded has not been added in reassessment proceedings; primary reason to believe that income had escaped assessment fails; no addition made in reassessment proceedings u/s. 147 on the very issue for which reasons for reopening is recorded, addition made on any other independent issue which is not the issue of the reasons recorded; reassessment made u/s. 147 would be invalid and is liable to be quashed. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Id CIT(A) has erred in sustaining addition of Rs. 14,25,715 on denying deduction u/s. 54F, while the asses....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.....2018 determined the income of the assessee at Rs. 16,58,830/-. 4. Aggrieved, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the CIT(Appeals) but without success. As the assessee despite having been afforded sufficient opportunity had failed to participate in the proceedings before the first appellate authority, therefore, the latter was constrained to dispose of the appeal on an exparte basis. Ostensibly, the CIT(Appeals) after examining the material available on record found no infirmity in the view taken by the A.O. and dismissed the appeal. 5. The assessee being aggrieved with the order of the CIT(Appeals) has carried the matter in appeal. 6. Shri Vimal Agrawal, the Ld. Authorized Representative for the assessee at the threshold su....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....f his aforesaid contention had relied on the following judicial pronouncements: (i) ACIT, Raipur Vs. Major Deepak Mehta, (2012) 344 ITR 641 (Chhattisgarh) (ii) CIT-5, Mumbai Vs. Jet Airways (I) Ltd. (2011) 331 ITR 236 (Bom) (iii) CIT-II Vs. Mohmed Juned Dadani (2014) 355 ITR 172 (Gujarat) (iv) CIT Vs. Shri Ram Singh, (2008) 306 ITR 343 (Rajasthan) It was, thus, the claim of the Ld. AR that as the addition/disallowance of the assessee's claim for deduction u/s. 54F of Rs. 14,25,715/- was not backed by a valid assumption of jurisdiction by the A.O, therefore, the same could not be sustained and was liable to be struck down. 7. Per contra, Shri Satya Prakash Sharma, Ld. Departmental Representative (for short 'DR') pointed....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....n the name of the deceased assessee as the legal heirs had failed to bring the said fact to his notice, therefore, the said order suffers from a fundamental defect. 10. As stated by the Ld. DR, and rightly so, as per the settled principle of law, no order can be passed against a dead person and, any proceedings regarding the deceased assessee shall be continued against the legal representative from the stage at which it stood on the date of the death of the deceased. My aforesaid view is supported by section 159 which reads as under: "159. (1) Where a person dies, his legal representative shall be liable to pay any sum which the deceased would have been liable to pay if he had not died, in the like manner and to the same extent as the de....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ly in relation to a legal representative. (6) The liability of a legal representative under this section shall, subject to the provisions of sub-section (4) and sub-section (5), be limited to the extent to which the estate is capable of meeting the liability." In a case where an assessee dies pending any proceedings before the department, the provisions of Section 159 of the Act get attracted. Accordingly, it is incumbent on the department to ensure compliance with Section 159 before any order is passed. An analogy can be drawn from the judgment of the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax Vs. Dalumal Shyamumal (2005) 276 ITR 62 (MP). The Hon'ble High Court had observed that as the A.O. had framed....