Ms. Pritpal Kaur Alias Garchran Kaur, Chandigarh V. ITO, Chandigarh

CO 68/CHANDI/2011

• Counselvise Citation: [2013] 122 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8674 (ITAT-CHANDIGARH)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 10 month(s)
• Appeal Type: Cross Objection
• Pronouncement Date: 27-06-2013
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Next Hearing Date: 11-06-2013
• Assessment Year: 2002-2003
• Appeal Filed On: 26-08-2011
• Result in Favour of: Revenue
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: AKHILESH GUPTADR
• Keywords: Assessment record
• Section: 142(1); 148; 144

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL CHANDIGARH BENCH A, CHANDIGARH BEFORE SHRI T.R. SOOD, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND MS. SUSHMA CHOWLA, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA NO.620/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2002-03) THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, VS. MS.PRITHPAL KAUR ALIA S GARCHRAN KAUR WARD 1(4), THROUGH L/H RAVINDER PAL SINGH SID HU, CHANDIGARH. H.NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH. PAN: ALZPS8914P AND C.O.NO.68/CHD/2011 ARISING OUT OF ITA NO.620/CHD/2011 (ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2006-07) MS.PRITHPAL KAUR ALIAS GARCHRAN KAUR VS. THE INCOM E TAX OFFICER, THROUGH L/H RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, WARD 1(4), H.NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH. CHANDIGARH. PAN: ALZPS8914P (APPELLANT) (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI SUDHIR SEHGAL DEPARTMENT BY : SHRI AKHILESH GUPTA,DR DATE OF HEARING : 11.06.2013 DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 27.06.2013 O R D E R PER SUSHMA CHOWLA, J.M, : THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS AGAINST THE ORD ER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX(APPEALS), CHANDIGARH DAT ED 15.03.2011 RELATING TO ASSESSMENT YEAR 2002-03 AGAINST THE ORD ER PASSED U/S 144 OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (IN SHORT THE ACT). THE ASSESSEE HAS FILED CROSS OBJECTIONS AGAINST THE APPEAL FILED BY THE RE VENUE. 2 2 2. BOTH THE APPEAL OF THE REVENUE AND THE CROSS OBJ ECTIONS FILED BY THE ASSESSEE ON THE SIMILAR ISSUE WERE HEARD TOGETH ER AND ARE BEING DISPOSED OFF BY THIS CONSOLIDATED ORDER FOR THE SAK E OF CONVENIENCE. 3. THE REVENUE IN ITA NO.620/CHD/2011 HAS RAISED FO LLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: 1. WHETHER ON THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES AND IN LAW THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) IS CORRECT IN QUASHING THE ASSESSMENT WH ILE HOLDING THAT NOTICE U/S 148 WAS INVALID BEING NOT SERVED ON LEGA L HEIR AS THE ASSESSEE HAS SINCE BEEN EXPIRED WHEREAS THE NOTICE HAS BEEN SERVED UPON THE LEGAL HEIR WHICH HAS ESCAPED HIS NOTICE. 2. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND ANY GROUNDS OF APPEAL BEFORE THE APPEAL IS HEARD OR DISPOSED OF F. 3. IT IS PRAYED THAT THE ORDER OF THE LD. CIT(A) B E CANCELLED AND THAT OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER MAY BE RESTORED. 4. THE ASSESSEE IN C.O.NO.68/CHD/2011 HAS RAISED FO LLOWING GROUND OF APPEAL: THE WORTHY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT SINCE NEITHER ANY NOTICE U/S 148 WAS SERVED UPON THE LEGAL HEIR/S NOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LEGAL H EIR/S HAS BEEN FRAMED AND, THUS, THE FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT OF A DE AD PERSON AND NO NOTICE HAVING BEEN SERVED U/S 148 AND, AS SUCH, THE CIT(A) HAS RIGHTLY QUASHED THE ASSESSMENT. THAT THE APPELLANT CRAVES LEAVE TO ADD OR AMEND A NY GROUND OF CROSS OBJECTION BEFORE THE APPEAL IS FINALLY HEA RD OR DISPOSED OFF. 5. THE BRIEF FACTS OF THE CASE ARE THAT INFORMATIO N WAS RECEIVED FROM VIGILANCE BUREAU (PUNJAB), CHANDIGARH THROUGH CENTR AL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH THAT SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARA N KAUR HAD MADE INVESTMENT AND HAD ALSO INVESTED DIFFERENT AMOUNTS IN VARIOUS BANKS DURING THE PERIOD RELATING TO IMPUGNED ASSESSMENT Y EAR. THE DETAILS OF THE SAID INVESTMENTS ARE ENLISTED AT PAGE 2 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER AND TOTALED TO RS.9,84,34,971/- AND IN ADDITION THERE W AS AGRICULTURAL INCOME 3 3 OF RS.15,06,629/-. SINCE THE SOURCE OF INVESTMENT OF THE AMOUNT WAS NOT EXPLAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER WITH THE APPROVAL OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SEC TION 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.3.2009. AS PER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER, THE NOT ICE WAS DULY SERVED BY AFFIXTURE AT THE LAST KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSES SEE. DESPITE VARIOUS NOTICES BEING ISSUED TO THE ASSESSEE TO FILE RETURN OF INCOME AND ALSO TO ATTEND THE PROCEEDINGS, THERE WAS NO REPRESENTATION ON THE REQUISITE DATE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY INFORMATION, THE ASSESSIN G OFFICER COMPLETED THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AT RS.9 ,99,41,600/-. 6. THE APPEAL WAS FILED THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI RAV INDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, HOUSE NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH I.E. THE ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE, AGAINST THE ORDER PASSED UNDER SECTION 14 4 OF THE ACT. THE PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE DURING THE APPELLATE PROCEEDIN GS WAS THAT SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR HAD DIED ON 21.11.2007 IN USA AND COPY OF THE DEATH CERTIFICATE WAS PLACED ON RECORD. NEXT PLEA OF THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE SAID SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR WAS NON-RESIDENT AND WAS RESIDING IN USA SINCE LONG AND THE SAID HOUSE NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH WAS OWNED BY SH RI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU AND HIS ESTRANGED WIFE. FURTHER PLEA O F THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT IT WAS NOTIFIED TO THE INSPECTOR WHO CAME FOR AFFIXTURE OF THE NOTICE THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD SINCE DIED AND NO NOTICE COUL D BE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON. THE CONTENTION OF THE ASS ESSEE WAS THAT THOUGH THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE D EATH OF SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR, NO EFFORTS WERE MADE TO SERVE NOTICE ON HER LEGAL HEIR. FURTHER THE REASONS RECORDED FOR R EOPENING THE ASSESSMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WERE ALSO C HALLENGED AND IT WAS ALSO SUBMITTED THAT THE BANK BALANCE AT SR.NO.1, 2 AND 3 OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WERE NOT OWNED BY THE ASSESSEE AND , THEREFORE THE 4 4 ADDITION BASED ON SUCH BANK ACCOUNT WAS WHOLLY MISC ONCEIVED AND NOT PROPER. 7. THE CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVED THAT SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR, THE ASSESSEE IN QUESTION HAD DI ED ON 21.11.2007 AS PER THE DEATH CERTIFICATE PLACED ON RECORD AND THAT THE FACT WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER AS PER THE NOTIN G RECORDED IN THE AFFIXTURE NOTICE DATED 31.3.2009. THE CIT (APPEALS ) FURTHER OBSERVED THAT I ALSO FIND THAT THE A.O. DID NOT TAKE ANY STEP TO VERIFY THE FACTS REGARDING THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. THE A.O. EVEN FAILED TO SUBSEQUENTLY ISSUE A NOTICE IN THE NAME OF THE LEGA L HEIR OWING TO THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE IN QUESTION. THE CIT (APPEALS) THEREAFTER DELIBERATED UPON THE FACTUAL ASPECTS OF VARIOUS DEP OSITS AND CONCLUDED BY STATING AS UNDER: IT IS SETTLED LAW THAT NO NOTICE CAN BE SERVED IN THE NAME OF A DEAD PERSON. AS SUCH SERVICE OF NOTICE IS INVALID UNDER THE LAW. THIS HAS BEEN CLEARLY HELD BY THE HON'BLE SUPREME COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. AMARCHAN N. SHROFF AS REPORTED IN 48 ITR 59. THIS HAS ALSO BEEN HELD BY VARIOUS OTHER JUDGMENTS RELIED UP ON BY THE COUNSEL AS STATED IN THE FOREGOING PARAS. I N VIEW OF THE ABOVE DISCUSSION, THE NOTICE ISSUED BY THE A.O. U/S 148 IS INVALID, AND THEREFORE, THE ASSESSM ENT PROCEEDINGS IN THE ABSENCE OF ISSUE OF A VALID NOTI CE ARE NULL & VOID. 8. THE REVENUE IS IN APPEAL AGAINST THE ORDER OF TH E CIT (APPEALS) IN QUASHING ASSESSMENT BY HOLDING THAT NOTICE ISSUED U NDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS INVALID BEING NOT SERVED ON THE LEGAL H EIR OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ASSESSEE HAD FILED CROSS OBJECTION SUPPORTING T HE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) THAT SINCE NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE, NOR THE ASSESS MENT ON LEGAL HEIR HAD BEEN FRAMED, THUS FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT OF DEAD PER SON BECAUSE OF NO NOTICE HAVING BEEN SERVED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS RIGHTLY QUASHED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). 5 5 9. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE REFERRED TO THE PAPER BOOK FILED BY THE REVENUE WHEREIN THE COPY OF THE AFFIXTURE OR DER ALONGWITH NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT HAD BEEN PLACED AT PAGES 5 AND 6 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE SAID AFFIXTURE ORDER WAS IN TH E NAME OF SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR. AS PER THE REPORT, THE NOTICE WAS AFFIXED ON THE FRONT GATE OF THE PREMISES IN THE PR ESENCE OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU WHO REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THEREAFTER POINTED OUT TO THE COPY OF AFFIXTURE ORDER ALONGWITH NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 DATED 31.3 .2009 ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR T HROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU PLACED AT PAGES 7 AND 8 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE REPORT OF THE INSPECTOR STATES THAT AS D IRECTED HE HAD AGAIN VISITED THE PREMISES OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SID HU WHO REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENT AND HENCE THE SAME WAS AFFIXED IN THE PRESENCE OF ANOTHER LABOURER. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE FURTHER REFERRED TO THE AFFIXTURE ORDER ALONGWITH NOTICE ISSUED UNDER S ECTION 142(1) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR PLACED AT PAGES 9 TO 11 OF THE PAPER BOOK. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE POINTED OUT THAT THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE WILLFULLY FAILED TO APPEAR BEFORE T HE ASSESSING OFFICER AND HE WAS IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF THE PROCEEDINGS CARR IED ON, WHICH WAS CLEAR FROM THE LETTER DATED 14.1.2010 RECEIVED FROM THE ASSESSEE FOR OBTAINING THE COPY OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF T HE ACT AND REASONS FOR REOPENING THE ASSESSMENT. THE ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE CASE WAS COMPLETED ON 16.12.2009 AND THE APPEAL WAS FILED ON 29.1.2009. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE THEREAFTER PRODUCED AS SESSMENT RECORDS FOR VERIFICATION. 6 6 10. THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE AT THE OUTSET WAS QUESTIONED WHETHER THE ASSESSEE WAS FILING ANY RETURN OF INCOM E AND THE REPLY OF THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT HE WAS NOT AWARE WHETHER SHE WAS AN ASSESSEE. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY THE LEARNED A.R. F OR THE ASSESSEE THAT PRIOR TO AFFIXTURE ORDER THERE WERE NO OTHER EFFORT S MADE BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER TO SERVE NOTICE ON HER AND IN VIE W OF THE ORDER-5 RULES 17,18 AND 19 OF CIVIL PROCEDURE CODE, THE NOR MAL PROCEDURE FOR SERVICE OF NOTICE HAS NOT BEEN FOLLOWED AND THE AS SESSMENT WAS BAD. THE SECOND PLEA RAISED BY THE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE WAS THAT THE ASSESSMENT ORDER WAS IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON AND THE SAME WAS NOT SUSTAINABLE. RELIANCE WAS PLACED IN MANPREET S INGH BHAMRA VS. ITO [50 SOT (CHD-TRIB)(UO) 85] AND IN CIT VS. RAKESH KU MAR MUKESH KUMAR [313 ITR 305 (P&H)]. IT WAS POINTED OUT BY T HE LEARNED A.R. FOR THE ASSESSEE THAT THE CROSS OBJECTION WAS IN SUPPOR T OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS). 11. THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE IN REJOINDER P OINTED OUT THAT THE NORMAL PROCEDURE WAS FOLLOWED BY THE ASSESSING OFFI CER AS IS EVIDENT FROM THE COPIES OF THE NOTICES ISSUED THROUGH POST, WHICH WERE RETURNED BY THE POSTAL DEPARTMENT. THE AFFIXTURE WAS MADE C ONSEQUENT THERETO. IN RESPECT OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER BEING ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE (DEAD PERSON), THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE RE VENUE PLACED RELIANCE ON THE PROVISIONS OF SECTION 292B OF THE ACT UNDER WHICH SUCH MISTAKES, IF ANY, IN THE ASSESSMENT, NOTICE, ORDER, SUMMON AR E COVERED AND COULD BE CURED. 12. WE HAVE HEARD THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSED THE RECORD. IN THE FACTS OF THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HA D RECEIVED CERTAIN 7 7 INFORMATION FROM VIGILANCE BUREAU (PUNJAB), CHANDIG ARH THROUGH CENTRAL CIRCLE-I, CHANDIGARH IN RELATION TO THE INVESTMENT MADE BY SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR. THE DETAILS OF INVE STMENT WERE AS UNDER: S.N O . PARTICULARS AMOUNT (RS.) I. BALANCE IN BANK A/C NO. 24SB 160317525 ON 25.3.02 WITH BANK OF PUNJAB, SECTOR-35, CHANDIGARH. 99,539.50 2. BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 0014-188789 WITH INDUS IND. BANK, SECTOR-8C, CHANDIGARH ON 25.3.02 14,56,523.07 3. BALANCE IN BANK ACCOUNT NO. 0014-188799 WITH INDUS IND. BANK SECTOR-8C, CHANDIGARH IN THE NAME OF GURCHARAN KAUR ON 25.3.02 14,56,523.07 4. INVESTMENT MADE IN SHARES BY SH. RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, SMT. PRITPAL KAUR MOTHER, RATINDER PAL SHIGH SIDHU BROTHER & PRESS TIME INFORMATION SERVICES PVT. LTD. DURING THE CHECK PERIOD 1,35,85,161.00 5. MONEY FOUND IN LOCKER NOS. 17A, 18A IN THE NAME OF PRITPAL KAUR M/O ACCUSED SH. RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU AND MRS. GURCHARAN 2 ND NAME OF HIS MOTHER IN INDUS IND. BANK SECTOR-8C, CHANDIGARH, WHICH WAS RECOVERED DURING SEARCH OF LOCKERS ON 19-4-02 8,17,40,5007- 6. BALANCE IN A/C NO.L 1314 OF WITH PUNJAB NATIONAL BANK, PH-I, MOHALI ON 25.3.02 96,725.12 TOTAL 9,84,34,971.76 7. AGRICULTURAL INCOME 15,066297- 13. BESIDES THE BANK BALANCES IN VARIOUS BANK ACCOU NTS AT SR.NO.1,2 AND 3 CERTAIN INVESTMENTS WERE MADE IN SHARES BY SH RI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, SMT.PRITPAL KAUR, MOTHER, SHRI RATINDE R PAL SINGH SIDHU, BROTHER AND PRESS TIME INFORMATION PVT. LTD. DURING THE PERIOD AMOUNTING TO RS.1.36 CRORES. FURTHER THERE WAS MO NEY FOUND IN LOCKER 8 8 NO.17A, 18A WITH INDUS IND. BANK, SECTOR 8-C, CHAND IGARH IN THE NAME OF PRITPAL KAUR, MOTHER OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU AND MRS.GURCHARAN KAUR SECOND NAME OF HIS MOTHER. THE AMOUNT OF RS.8.17 CRORES WAS RECOVERED DURING THE SEARCH OF LOCKER ON 19.4.2002. ON RECEIPT OF THE ABOVE SAID INFORMATION AND SOURCES O F INVESTMENT BEING NOT EXPLAINED, THE ASSESSING OFFICER SOUGHT APPROVA L OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX-I, CHANDIGARH AND THEREA FTER ISSUED NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT ON 31.3.2009. THE PER USAL OF THE ASSESSMENT RECORDS PRODUCED BY THE LEARNED D.R. FOR THE REVENUE REFLECT THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.3.2009 AND NOTICE BEING ISSUED IN THE NAME OF SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR WAS SENT THROUGH POST AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES ON 1.4.2009 WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH P ERSON. THE FIRST AFFIXTURE ORDER WAS ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALONGWITH THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF SMT.PRI TPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR, HOUSE NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDI GARH. THE INSPECTOR AND THE NOTICE SERVER WERE TO EFFECT THE SERVICE OF NOTICE BY AFFIXTURE. THE INSPECTOR AFFIXED THE SAID NOTICE O N THE FRONT GATE OF THE PREMISES IN THE PRESENCE OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, SON WHO REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE NOTICE. THE DOCUMENTS WERE AFFIXED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE INSPECTOR, T.A. AND LABOURER DIGGIN G IN FRONT OF THE HOUSE. SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU TOLD THAT SM T.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR HAD SINCE DIED AND WHEN ASKED TH E NAME OF THE OTHER LEGAL HEIRS OF SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GUR CHARAN KAUR, HE REFUSED TO TELL THEIR NAMES. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ON 31.3.2009 THEN ISSUED ANOTHER NOTICE IN THE NAME OF SMT.PRITPAL KA UR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, HOUSE NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH, WHICH WAS SENT BY POST AND THE SAME WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES ON 2.4. 2009 WITH THE 9 9 REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AL SO ISSUED AFFIXTURE ORDER ALONGWITH THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR. THE SAME WAS AGAIN AFFIXED AS SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE DOCUMENTS AND TH E SAME WERE AFFIXED IN THE PRESENCE OF SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU, S HRI RAM NATH, INSPECTOR, SHRI MAOTA AND NOTICE SERVER. IT IS ALS O REPORTED THAT THE LABOURER HAD LEFT THE PREMISES AFTER DIGGING IN FRO NT OF THE HOUSE. 14. THE ISSUE ARISING IN THE CASE IS IN RELATION TO THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE OBJECTIONS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THIS REGARD ARE THREE FOLD; (A) NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED I N THE NAME OF DEAD PERSON; (B) NO SERVICE OF THE SAID NOTICE HAD BEEN MADE IN THE ORDINARY COURSE AND (C) THE AFFIXTURE OF THE SAID NOTICE IS BAD. THE ASSESSING OFFICER AFTER RECORDING THE REASONS FOR REOPENING T HE ASSESSMENT HAD SENT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.3.2009 IN THE NAME OF SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR, HOUSE NO .549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIGARH BY POST. THE SAID NOTICE WAS RETURNED O N 1.4.2009 BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH THE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON . THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO ISSUED AFFIXTURE ORDER ON 31.3.2009 IN THE NAME OF THE ASSESSEE I.E. SMT.PRITPAL KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR, WHICH WERE AFFIXED AT THE KNOWN ADDRESS OF THE ASSESSEE IN THE PRESENCE OF HER SON AND LEGAL HEIR, WHO REFUSED TO RECEIVE THE SAID NOT ICE. THE REPORT OF AFFIXTURE CLEARLY MENTIONS THE SAID FACTS. 15. THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS INFORMED OF THE DEMIS E OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO REFUSED TO TAKE THE NOTICE ISSUED IN THE NAME OF HER MOTHER THOUGH WAS PRESENT AT THE PREMIS ES AT THE TIME OF AFFIXTURE ON 31.3.2009 ITSELF. THE ASSESSING OFFIC ER SENT ANOTHER NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.3.2009 IN THE NAME OF SMT.PRITPAL 10 10 KAUR ALIAS SMT.GURCHARAN KAUR THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SH RI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU (SON), HOUSE NO.549, SECTOR 10, CHANDIG ARH THROUGH POST WHICH WAS RETURNED BY THE POSTAL AUTHORITIES WITH T HE REMARKS NO SUCH PERSON ON 2.4.2009. THE ASSESSING OFFICER ALSO IS SUED AFFIXTURE ORDER OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WHICH WAS AFFIXED IN THE PRESENCE OF THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, WHO IS HE LEGA L HEIR, AS HE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE SAID NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. 16. IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, THE NOTICE HAD BEEN ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR I.E. THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE, SHRI RAVINDER PAL SINGH SIDHU AND THE SAME WAS SENT THROUGH POST AND ALSO WAS AFFIXED AT THE ADDRE SS OF THE ASSESSEE, SINCE THE SON OF THE ASSESSEE REFUSED TO ACCEPT THE NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. IN VIEW OF THE SAID FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES WE ARE OF THE VIEW THAT THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS COMP ILED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT IN ISSUING NOTICE OF HEARING TO THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE AND THE INITIATION OF THE PROCEEDINGS UNDE R SECTION 148 OF THE ACT THUS WAS VALIDLY MADE. IN VIEW THEREOF, WE FIN D NO MERIT IN THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN HOLDING THAT THE NOTI CE ISSUED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS INVALID. THE SERVICE OF NOTICE UPON THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE THROU GH AFFIXTURE WAS IN COMPLIANCE OF THE PROVISIONS OF THE ACT AND HENCE T HE INITIATION OF RE- ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS AND SERVICE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT IS UPHELD. THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDINGS THUS INI TIATED IN THE PRESENT SET OF FACTS OF THE CASE HAD BEEN VALIDLY SO INITIA TED. IN VIEW OF OUR UPHOLDING THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT AS VALID, WE REVERSE THE FINDINGS OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IN THIS R EGARD. HOWEVER, THE ASSESSEE HAD RAISED OTHER ISSUES AGAINST COMPLETION OF ASSESSMENT IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON BEING BAD IN LAW AND NO PRO PER AND REASONABLE 11 11 OPPORTUNITY BEING AFFORDED UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ACT AND ALSO ON THE ADDITION ON MERITS BY WAY OF GROUND NOS.6 TO 9 RAIS ED IN THE MEMO OF APPEAL FILED IN FORM NO.35 BEFORE THE CIT (APPEALS) . THE SAID GROUND OF APPEAL NOS.6 TO 9 HAVE NOT BEEN ADJUDICATED UPON BY THE CIT (APPEALS), IN VIEW OF HIS ORDER IN HOLDING THE ASSE SSMENT PROCEEDINGS TO BE NULL AND VOID, IN THE ABSENCE OF ISSUE OF VALID NOTICE. SINCE THE ISSUE OF NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE VAL ID, WE REMIT THE ISSUE BACK TO THE FILE OF THE CIT (APPEALS) TO ADJUDICATE THE GROUND NOS.6 TO 9 RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. REASONABLE OPPORTUNITY OF HEARING SHALL BE AFFORDED TO THE ASSESSEE. 17. THE ASSESSEE VIDE CROSS OBJECTION HAS SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF CIT (APPEALS) OBSERVING THAT NEITHER ANY NOTICE UNDER S ECTION 148 OF THE ACT WAS SERVED UPON THE LEGAL HEIR, NOR THE ASSESSMENT ON LEGAL HEIR HAS BEEN FRAMED AND THUS FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ON A DEAD PER SON WAS RIGHTLY QUASHED BY THE CIT (APPEALS). FROM THE PERUSAL OF THE ORDER OF THE CIT (APPEALS) IT IS APPARENT THAT THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE ASSESSING OFFICER WAS HELD TO BE VOID AND INVALID BECAUSE OF NON-SERVICE OF NOTICE ISSUED UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT. THE CIT (APPE ALS) HAS NOT ADJUDICATED THE ISSUE OF FRAMING OF ASSESSMENT ON A DEAD PERSON. IN VIEW OF OUR DIRECTIONS IN PARAS HEREINABOVE OF SETT ING ASIDE THE ISSUES BACK TO THE FILED OF THE CIT (APPEALS) RAISED VIDE GROUND NOS.6 TO 9 BEFORE HIM, WHICH ALSO INCLUDE THE ISSUE OF ASSESSM ENT BEING FRAMED ON DEAD PERSON, THE CROSS OBJECTIONS RAISED BY THE ASS ESSEE ARE INFRUCTUOUS. FURTHER ON ACCOUNT OF OUR HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSME NT MADE IN THE PRESENT CASE HAS BEEN VALIDLY INITIATED UNDER SECTI ON 148 OF THE ACT, WE 12 12 DISMISS THE CROSS OBJECTION RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE. 18. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL FILED BY THE REVENUE IS ALLOWED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSES AND CROSS OBJECTION FILED BY T HE ASSESSEE IS DISMISSED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON THIS 27 TH OF JUNE, 2013. SD/- SD/- (T.R.SOOD) (SUSHMA CHOWLA) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER DATED: 27 TH JUNE,2013 *RATI* COPY TO: THE APPELLANT/THE RESPONDENT/THE CIT(A)/TH E CIT/THE DR. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, ITAT, CHANDIGARH