TMI Blog2022 (9) TMI 1189X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he foregoing explains our decision in non-acceptance of the assessee s case. We may, before parting, also advert to the decision in Guduthur Brothers v. ITO [ 1960 (7) TMI 5 - SUPREME COURT] wherein the Apex Court per it s larger Bench decision explained that where a notice remained undisposed, it did not cease to be operative, and the AO had the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage where the illegality had occurred. Notice u/s. 143(2) was for limited scrutiny, i.e., qua cash deposited during demonetisation period it was not proper on the part of the revisionary authority to, in exercise of the revisionary power, question the absence of verification in assessment qua agricultural income, disclosed by the assessee - The objection is, to our mind, not maintainable, both on facts and in law . This is as agricultural income is surely one of the sources of cash deposited by the assessee, to verify which the return was selected for scrutiny. Two, that the assessee does not own any agricultural land is an admitted fact. It is only where the land is either owned or taken on rent (as per revenue record), that the income from agricultural activity could be said to be ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... s issued in the name of a deceased person; Shri Rama Rao Kapale (RK) having expired on 14/02/2021 (PB pgs.42). No fresh notice u/s. 263 was issued on the appellant, the legal representative (LR) and daughter of RK, i.e., on her informing the ld. Pr. CIT of her father s death vide letter dated 12/01/2022, i.e., in response to the notice dated 30/12/2021, so that the ensuing proceedings were thus null and void. The only manner whereby the appellant could be proceeded against was by taking her on record, i.e., in terms of sec. 159(2)(b), even as explained in CIT v. Hemanathan (M.) [2016] 384 ITR 177 (Mad) which also considers the decision by the Hon'ble jurisdictional High Court in Kaushalyabai v. CIT [1998] 238 ITR 1008 (MP), and which was not. Reliance is placed on Pr. CIT v. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd. [2019] 416 ITR 613 (SC); and Sheela Devi v. Pr. CIT (in ITA No. 1853/Del/2021, dated 03/03/2022/WS-1, pgs. 4-14). In the former, notice u/s. 143(2) was issued on the amalgamating company despite communication of the fact of its amalgamation to the assessing authority, while in the latter, notice u/s. 263 was issued, as in the instant case, on a person no longer alive. This ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on November 2, 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for Assessment Year 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. (emphasis, ours) Though this decision stands since turned, i.e., on the aspect of ceasure to exist of amalgamating company ( Pr. CIT vs. Mahagun Realtors (P.) Ltd . [2022] 443 ITR 194 (SC)), the same would continue to hold qua a valid assumption of jurisdiction. The issue thus boils down to a valid assumption of jurisdiction and grant of proper opportunity. Our reference to service of notice‟ hereinbefore is only toward the latter, which aspect is not in dispute in the instant case. 4.2 On the aspect of jurisdiction, reference during hearing was made to CIT vs. Amitabh Bachchan [2016] 384 ITR 200 (SC). It stands clarified therein, as had been earlier by the Apex Court in Gita Devi Aggarwal v. CIT [1970] 76 ITR 496 (SC) and CIT vs. Electro House [1971] 82 ITR 824 (SC), also referred to by it, that it was not necessary ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... lyabai (supra) and Premium Capital Markets Investment Ltd. (supra) i.e., in principle. In Swaran Kanta v. CIT [1989] 176 ITR 291 (P H), the mention of the name of the deceased in the heading of the order, in proceedings, validly initiated, and concluded on the LR, whose is deemed by law (s.159) to be an assessee, was held as valid notwithstanding that the title of the order was not happily worded, which though would not make it invalid for that reason and, besides, is saved by s. 292B. 4.4 The foregoing explains our decision in non-acceptance of the assessee s case. We may, before parting, also advert to the decision in Guduthur Brothers v. ITO [1960] 40 ITR 298 (SC), wherein the Apex Court per it s larger Bench decision explained that where a notice remained undisposed, it did not cease to be operative, and the AO had the jurisdiction to continue the proceedings from the stage where the illegality had occurred. 4.5 The assessee s next legal challenge before us was that as the notice u/s. 143(2) was for limited scrutiny, i.e., qua cash deposited during demonetisation period (PB pg.7), it was not proper on the part of the revisionary authority to, in exercise of the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
