TaxTMI 
TaxTMI 
2025 (3) TMI 1836
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... his residence in India. Shri Dilip Mehta happens to be the Executor of Estate of late Shri Ramniklal Mehta. Undisputedly, Dilip Mehta and his wife had initially moved to Belgium in the year 1973 and are presently residing in Dubai. Shri Dilip Mehta is a non-resident Indian (NRI). 3. A search and seizure action was carried under Section 132 of the Act at the business premises of the assessee at Rosy Blue (India) Group on 25.08.2011. Consequent to the search, a notice under Section 153A of the Act was issued on 11.01.2013 in response to which a Return of Income (RoI) was filed on behalf of the Estate of late Ramniklal Mehta on 04.03.2013 declaring a total income of Rs. 11,47,13,590/-. The Assessing Officer has noticed that the said RoI filed on 04.03.2013 under Section 153A of the Act was filed showing the status of the assessee as an NRI. 4. It appears that an information was received by the Government of India from French Government under DTAA regarding an account in the name of an entity called White Cedar Investment Ltd. (now known as Red Oak Operations Ltd.). It was informed that the account in the name of White Cedar Investment Ltd. is in HSBC Bank, Geneva. The base note....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....ted 27.12.2011 of Mr. Karl French. The information received from the Spanish Tax authorities showed that there was no company by name White Cedar Investment Ltd. or Red Oak Operations Ltd. registered in Spain. It was also informed that though Mr Karl French was a resident of Spain he was not a Director of any Company in Spain. 9. A letter dated 10.03.2014 produced by learned AR of the assessee before the Assessing Officer, showed that White Cedar Investment Ltd. was a company incorporated in British Virgin Island, under IBC number 582130. 10. On consideration of the entire material, the Assessing Officer came to the conclusion that the assessee has not discharged the onus by submitting the consent waiver form and the authenticity of the letter dated 27.12.2011 from Mr. Karl French that the assessee owned only 5.73% of the corpus of White Cedar Investments Ltd. could not be verified. Finally, the learned Assessing Officer concluded that in the RoI, the assessee had declared income at Rs. 11,46,72,012/- equivalent to USD 25,70,545/- as against peak balance of USD 4,48,61,171/- as on 03.03.2006 which was equivalent to Rs. 200,12,56,838/-. It is in these circumstances that the le....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....d based the information/details which were never made available to the appellant and without affording an opportunity to the appellant is against the natural justice and is bad in law and ought to be cancelled. 3. The Learned Commissioner of Income-tax (Appeals) erred in upholding the order passed by Learned Assessing Officer assessing the appellant in the status of "Resident" under Income-tax Act, 1961. It is submitted that in accordance with the provisions under Section 168 r.w.s. 6 of Income-tax Act, 1961 the appellant is a "non-resident" as claimed in the return of income. The appellant has furnished all details as available to establish the status of the "Estate" as non-resident and as such there is no reason to for the learned Assessing Officer to take a contrary view without bring any material evidence to negate the claim of the appellant." 14. The learned CIT(A) in the second round of challenge has decided the appeal by order dated 28.06.2024 upholding ground no. 1. In the result, the search proceedings initiated against a dead person and the consequent notice issued under Section 153A of the Act on Shri Dilip Mehta as executor of Estate of late Ramnikl....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....otal income of the assessee as unexplained money u/s.69A on the ground that there is absence of incriminating material without appreciating the fact that the Hon'ble ITAT has not set aside this issue of additions made in the proceedings u/s. 153A of the Act without having any incriminating material in the instant case and thus adjudicating the same was out of the jurisdiction of the Ld.CIT(A)? 5. Whether on the facts and under the circumstances of the case and in Law, the Ld.CIT(A) has erred in deleting the disallowance of Rs. 188,65,84,826/- (Rs. 200,12,56,838/- less Rs. 11,46,72,012/-) made by the assessing officer to the total income of the assessee as unexplained money w/s.69A on the ground that there is absence of incriminating material without giving opportunity to the Assessing officer on this issue? 6. The appellant prays that the order of the CIT(A) on the above ground be set aside and that of the Assessing Officer be restored. 7. The appellant craves leave to amend or alter any ground or add a new ground which may be necessary." 16. It is submitted by the learned DR that the proceedings initiated against Mr. Dilip Mehta, legal heir/succes....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
.... We have considered the submissions made. As noticed earlier, the co-ordinate Bench by order dated 25.08.2022 had remitted only three issues/grounds for consideration by learned CIT(A),. A perusal of the impugned order would show that the first ground which relates to challenge to the validity of the action and the basis of search, has found favour with the learned CIT(A) and the same is allowed. So far as second ground about the alleged absence of opportunity being granted to the appellant and the information from Mr Karl French not being furnished, was essentially a ground based on breach of principles of natural justice. In para 12, the learned CIT(A) has found that the said ground does not require any deliberation and has not been decided by the leaned CIT(A). 19. The third issue about the residential status has also been dismissed for want of production of documentary evidence to show that Late Ramniklal Mehta was a NRI at the time of his death. 20. Thus, we are only concerned with ground no. 1 (raised by the assessee before the learned CIT(A)) which has been accepted by CIT(A), by which Revenue is aggrieved. This challenge is covered by ground nos. 1, 2 and 3 as raised ....
X X X X Extracts X X X X
X X X X Extracts X X X X
....sed in consequence to a search warrant, issued under section 132 of the Act, in the name of a dead person. Such search warrant is against the law of natural justice. No valid assessment could have been made on the strength of such an invalid search warrant. The judgments cited by the learned counsel for the appellant are not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case, being clearly distinguishable." 21. It is necessary to note that the Supreme Court has not interfered with the said order as SLP (D) 1998/2009 challenging the said order has been dismissed on 30.03.2009. 22. When the search itself was illegal and invalid, the fact that Shri Dilip Mehta had participated and had filed return cannot cure the illegality. The reliance placed on behalf of the Revenue on the decision of the Supreme Court, in Gunjan Girishbhai Mehta (supra), is misplaced. That was a case wherein notice under Section 132 of the Act was issued in the name of a dead person. The said notice was duly served on the assessee (petitioner therein) as a legal heir of the deceased. A notice of assessment under Section 158BC of the Act was issued and in the return filed the income was declared as NIL. Th....