TMI Blog2021 (7) TMI 1323X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... TMI 1449 - SUPREME COURT] AND CHANDRESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL [ 2019 (1) TMI 353 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] Thus we find no merit in the initiation of the proceeding against the person who died more than three years prior to the date of issuance of notice under Section 148 - Decided in favour of assessee. - ITA No. 2232/Ahd/2018 - - - Dated:- 9-7-2021 - Shri Amarjit Singh, Accountant Member And Ms. Madhumita Roy, Judicial Member For the Appellant : Shri T. P. Hemani, Sr. Adv., with Shri Parimal Sinh Parmar, A.R. For the Respondent Shri S. S. Shukla, Sr. D.R. ORDER PER Ms. MADHUMITA ROY - JM: The instant appeal filed by the assessee is directed against the order dated 29.05.2017 passed by the Ld. CIT (Appeals ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... r, such plea of the assessee was rejected by the First Appellate Authority and the addition was confirmed. Hence, the instant appeal before us mainly against the initiation of the proceeding under Section 148/147 of the Act by the Ld. AO. 4. We have heard the rival submission made by the respective parties, we have also perused the relevant materials available on records including the order passed by the authorities below. 5. The objection was raised by the assessee during the appellate proceeding as regards the jurisdiction and the validity of initiation of proceeding under Section 147/148 of the Act. The following judgments relied upon by the Ld. AR in support of his contentions were also carefully considered by us:- (i) Urmilabe ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... of a deceased person is not tenable in the eye of law. Neither the reopening notice under Section 148 issued to a dead person could be continued against legal representatives. Reliance is placed on the judgment passed by the Hon ble Jurisdictional High Court in the case of Urmilaben Anirudhsinhji Jadeja vs. ITO, reported in 420 ITR 226 (Gujarat), PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., reported in (2019) 416 ITR 613 (SC) and Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel vs. ITO, reported in (2019) 413 ITR 276 (Gujarat). The ratio laid down in the order passed by the Hon ble Madras High Court in the case of Alamela Veerappan vs. ITO, reported in [2018] 95 taxmann.com 155/257 Taxman 72 (Mad.) has also been considered by us where the ratio as above has been lai ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
