TMI Blog2023 (6) TMI 878X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t valid in the eyes of law. See LATE BHUPENDRA BHIKHALAL DESAI (SINCE DECD.) [ 2021 (9) TMI 431 - SC ORDER] , DURLABHBHAI KANUBHAI RAJPARA [ 2019 (10) TMI 933 - SC ORDER] , CHANDRESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL [ 2019 (1) TMI 353 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , URMILABEN ANIRUDHHASINHJI JADEJA [ 2019 (9) TMI 356 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] , LATE BHARTI HARENDRA MODI BY HER LEGAL HEIR NIKHIL HARENDR MODI [ 2019 (7) TMI 544 - GUJARAT HIGH COURT] . Thus as observed that at the time when the notice u/s 263 was issued by the Principal CIT, the assessee had already expired (on 23-02- 2018), order passed under section 263 of the Act is not valid in the eyes of law,having been passed on a deceased person - Decided against revenue. - ITA No. 700/Ahd/2019 - - - D ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... t instead of treating the same in the nature of Sale consideration in respect of Shares. 3. On the facts in the circumstances of the case it is most respectfully submitted that the Ld. Principal Commissioner of Income Tax-4 has erred in Law and on Facts by directing the Assessing Officer to make the inquiry in respect of the brokerage born by the appellant without giving any opportunity of being heard to the appellant. 4. Your appellant craves leave to add, to alter or to amend the grounds of appeal if occasion arises. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the assessee filed return of income for the impugned assessment year declaring total income of ₹ 83,52,43,311/-. The assessment order was passed accepting the ret ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ically noted in the 263 order that the assessee had made a request to drop the 263 proceedings since the 263 proceedings have been initiated in the name of Shri Babu Bhai Patel (the assessee), who had passed away as on the date of initiation of 263 proceedings, and accordingly 263 proceedings are liable to be dropped. The counsel for the assessee submitted that Shri Babu bhai Patel had expired on 6th February 2018, whereas the 263 proceedings against the deceased assessee were initiated vide notice dated 15th February 2019. Therefore, at the time when the 263 proceedings were initiated against the assessee, he had already passed away. Further, despite the fact that vide submission dated 22nd February 2019, the assessee had submitted (para 3 ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... view that such order passed in the name of the deceased person, is not valid in the eyes of law. 6.1 In the case of ITO v. Bhupendra Bhikhalal Desai[2021] 131 taxmann.com 40 (SC) , the original assessee, namely 'B', passed away on 23-4-2017.The Assessing Officer issued a notice under section 153C in name of 'B' on 29-3-2019. After receiving said notice legal heir informed Assessing Officer that his father, B had passed away and requested to drop proceedings as notice was issued to a dead person. The Assessing Officer rejected objections raised by legal heir on ground that no information was provided about demise of B and even after his death income tax returns were filed in name of B for relevant assessment years. The Hi ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Officer issued notice under section 148 in his name to reopen assessment and petitioner being heir and legal representative of deceased raised an objection that assessee had already expired and, therefore, notice in his name was not valid, merely because petitioner had informed Assessing Officer about death of assessee and asked him to drop proceedings, it could not be construed that petitioner had participated in proceedings and, therefore, provisions of section 292B would not be attracted and notice under section 148 was to be treated as invalid. 6.4 In the case of Urmilaben Anirudhhasinhji Jadejav. ITO117 taxmann.com 504 (Gujarat) , the Gujarat High Court held that reopening notice under section 148 issued against a dead person would ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... otice under section 148 to assessee to file return on 31-3-2021 and writ applicant, legal representative of assessee, had informed about death of assessee on 22-11-2020, since writ applicant had not surrendered to jurisdiction of Assessing Officer by submitting return in response to impugned notice and Assessing Officer had not issued notice to him as legal representative representing estate of deceased assessee, impugned notice issued by Assessing Officer was invalid and should be quashed. 6.9 In the case of Bharti Harendra Modi v. ITO 109 taxmann.com 389 (Gujarat) , the original assessee, namely, BHM died on 26-5-2017. The Assessing Officer issued a reopening notice under section 148 in name of BHM on ground that on basis of informati ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
