DCIT-CC- 3(2), MUMBAI V. VRAJLAL CHANDULAL MEHTA, MUMBAI

ITA 1903/MUM/2020

• Counselvise Citation: [2021] 104 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7616 (ITAT-MUMBAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 19 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 24-11-2021
• Appeal Filed By: Department
• Order Result: Dismissed
• Bench Allotted: F
• Assessment Year: 2006-2007
• Appeal Filed On: 05-11-2020
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Keywords: Peak credit; Revised return
• Section: 148; 143(3); 69A

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL MUMBAI BENCH “F” MUMBAI BEFORE SHRI S. RIFAUR RAHMAN (ACCOUNTANT MEMBER) AND SHRI PAVAN KUMAR GADALE (JUDICIAL MEMBER) ITA No. 1903/MUM/2020 Assessment Year: 2006-07 DCIT-CC-3(2), Room No. 1913, Air India Building, Nariman Point, Mumbai-400021. Vs. Vrajlal Chandulal Mehta, Shri Anoop Vrajlal Mehta Legal Heir of Late Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta, 92, EI-CID, 13-A, Ridge Road, Mumbai-400 006. PAN No. AADPM 5837 E AppellantRespondent Revenueby:Mr.S.N.Kabra, DR Assessee by:Mr. Vijay Mehta, AR D at e o f H e a r i n g:04/10/2021 D a t e o f p r o n o u n c e m e n t:25/11/2021 ORDER PER S. RIFAUR RAHMAN, A.M. The present appeal is filed by the Revenue against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals)-51, Mumbai [in short ‘CIT(A)’] for the assessment year 2006-07 dated 04.11.2015 and arises out of assessment completed u/s 143(3) r.w.s. 147 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (in short the Act). 2.The relevant facts relating to the grounds raised by the Revenue are, there was a search action at office and residential premises of Mr. Anoop C Mehta on 13.9.2011 wherein Mr Mehta was confronted with certain documents which indicated that his father Late Shri Vrajlal C Mehta had Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 2 certain bank accounts with HSBC, Geneva Branch, having significant balances in them. In his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, he admitted existence of one account i.e. Yeel Investments and he promised that suitable taxes will be paid with respect to income in that account. He also admitted that he was the legal heir to the assets in his father's estate. Post search, Mr. Mehta communicated the fact of existence of such an account to the Executors of the Estate of his father and the Executors, with help from professional attorneys, brought back the amounts in the account of the Estate of Late V C Mehta. The Executors offered this amount to tax while filing return of income of the Estate for AY 2012-13. It was Mr. Mehta's contention that- although he was the legal heir, the estate of his father had not yet devolved on him and hence, the amount was taxable in the hands of the Estate. This fact was communicated to the Department by Mr. Anoop Mehta vide his letter dated 19.1.2012 as a reason for his not including these amounts in his own return of income. He also communicated that the amount was offered to tax in the hands of the Estate in AY 2012-13. 2.1Noticing that the amounts in the HSBC account related to the period pertaining to AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08, the AO reopened the assessment of these two years in the hands of Shri Anoop Mehta, L/H of Late Shri Vralal Mehta. The AO issued a notice to Shri Anoop Mehta as Legal heir of Late Shri Vrajlal C Mehta. The notice was re-directed by Mr Anoop Mehta to the Executors of the Estate of Vrajlal Mehta who intimated that the original return for these two years was also filed in the name of the Executors of the Estate and they also proceeded to file the revised return pursuant to the notice on Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 3 9th April, 2014 wherein no additional income was offered to tax. However; subsequently, in December, 2014, the assessee was provided reasons recorded by the AO and subsequently, was also made available the base note which indicated that the income offered by the Estate in 2012-13 should actually have been offered in AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08. The assessee (Estate of Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta), subsequently revised the return on 26.3.2015 and offered the relevant income in these two years. The AO has accepted the income computed by the assessee but has proceeded to pass the order in the hands of Shri Anoop Mehta as L/H of Late Vrajlal Mehta making an addition of the same amount under section 69A of the Act and not in the hands of the Estate of Late Vrajlal Mehta. He also did not give any credit to taxes paid by the assessee on this amount in AY 2012-13 wherein this income was offered by the assessee earlier and taxes had been duly paid. 3.The assessee made following submissions before the CIT(A) and from the submissions of the assessee, ld. CIT(A) observed as follow: “5.Ground No. 1 of the appeal is against the legality of the re-assessment order wherein the appellant had stated that the order passed by the AO is not correct since the AO has not invoked proper jurisdiction over the Estate of Late Shri Vrajlal C Mehta and has passed the assessment order in the name of Shri Anoop V Mehta in his capacity as Legal Heir of Late Shri V C Mehta. It is claimed that the assessment made in the hands of a wrong person does not survive and needs to be quashed 5.1.It is noted that in this case, there was a search action at office and residential premises of one Anoop C Mehta on 13.9.2011. During the course of search proceedings, Mr. Mehta was confronted with certain documents which indicated that his father Shri Vrajlal C Mehta had certain bank accounts with significant balances in them at HSBC, Geneva Branch. In his statement u/s 132(4) of the Act, he admitted existence of one account i.e. Yeel Investments and he promised to offer the amount to tax. He also admitted that he was the legal heir to the assets in his father's estate. Subsequently, he communicated this fact to the Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 4 Executors of the Estate of his father and the Executors, with help from professional attorneys, were able to bring back the amounts in the account of the Estate of Late V C Mehta. The Executors offered this amount to tax while filing return of income of the Estate for AY 2012-13. This fact was communicated to the Department by Shri Anoop Mehta vide his letter dated 19.1.2012 as a reason for his not including these amounts in his own return of income. 5.2The Estate of Late Shri V C Mehta had filed his original return of income for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 on 5.2.2008. Subsequent to the search, the AO issued a notice under section 148 of the Act for AY 2007-08 on 31.3.2014 and for AY 2006.07 on 23.2.2015 wherein the reasons recorded for reopening the cases were similar in nature, being the concealment of amounts shown as balance in the HSBC accounts in these years which were not offered to tax in the hands of the assessee. The notices were issued in the name of Shri Anoop V Mehta, Legal Heir of Late Vrajlal C Mehta. The notices were forwarded by Anoop Mehta to the Executors of the Estate of Late Vrailal C Mehta and the Executors responded on 25th March, 2015 by filing a return of income in the name of the Estate wherein an income of Rs 8 00 94 225/- was offered to tax of which Rs 8,00,94,000 pertained to the peak balance in the HSBC account, Geneva Branch. In the forwarding letter dated 25th March, 2015, the Executors clarified that although the notice had been issued in the name of Anoop Mehta as one of the legal heirs of Late Shri V C Mehta, they were responding as the notice had been forwarded by Anoop Mehta to them as they were the Executors to the Estate which had not devolved on the legal heirs. Outlining the various proceedings in this case and the fact that the Executors did not have any knowledge of the base note and that a copy of the note had only been made available on 16th March, 2015, the Executors elaborated that although the base note was unsigned and unsubstantiated, they were revising the returns of income for AY 2006-07 and AY 2007-08 to offer the income in the year in which it was reflected in the bank account rather than in AY 2012-13 where it had been actually offered. The Executors also requested that the income of AY 2012-13 needed to be modified accordingly and the SA tax paid in that year should be set off against the tax due on this amount. 5.3In his order, the AO has noted that the assessee has filed his return of income on 5.2.2008 declaring nil income and that the assessee has also filed his revised return of income on 26.3.2015 pursuant to issue of a notice under section 148 of the Act. It is noted that both these returns of income noted by the AO have been filed in the capacity of the Estate of Late Vrajlal Mehta. At para 4 of his order, the AO also observes that the assessee is an individual who has expired on 24th April, 2005 and has income from other sources During the assessment proceedings, the AO has also accepted letters and explanations from the Executors of the Estate and it is noted that invariably, all the replies to the AO's queries have been provided by the Executors of the Estate. While framing the order, the AO has relied on answer of Anoop Mehta to Q no. 10 wherein he has admitted US$ Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 5 21,51,725/- as his undisclosed income. The AO also acknowledges that Mr Anoop Mehta, vide his letter dated 19.1.2012, has submitted that the account under question was opened by Late Shri Vrajlal Mehta and that the amount of US$ 24,68,070 has been declared in the hands of Estate of Late Shri Vrailal Mehta for AY 2012-13. The AO goes on to observe that since the credit is reflected during the period November 2005 to February 2007, declaration of this income in AY 2012- 13 is not correct and that the income should have been declared in the year in which the amount has been credited in the HSBC bank account. With reference to his decision to made an addition in the hands of Anoop Mehta as legal heir, the AO observed that: "5.10 It seems odd that the legal heir who claims beneficial ownership of the HSBC Bank account and also got the balance remitted in India could not obtain a copy of the bank account. Even the executors have not providedacopyoftheaccounttoprovidetheirbonafides. Notwithstanding, the assessee's non co-operation as the legal heir has claimed that the undisclosed account belongs to his father, the same is treated as his undisclosed income on its peak balance during the relevant period. 5.4In his submission dated 2gth December, 2016, the assessee has outlined the sequence of events since the day of search in the premises of Anoop Mehta. It has been claimed that the Executors did not have any information with reference to the HSBC account prior to search action and hence, it was only after the search that the Executors initiated action to get the amount back in India. Being unaware of various transactions in this account in earlier years, the amount was offered to tax in the hands of the estate in the year of its receipt in India. However once the AO shared the base note with the legal heir who passed on the information to the Executors, the Executors revised the return of the Estate in accordance with the information in the base note. The assessee submits that the AO passed the assessment order wherein he accepted the income declared by the Estate in the return filed by it but despite the fact that entire compliance was made by the Executor and the return was filed in the name of the Estate and the assessment order u/s 143(3) rws 147 was passed in the name of Mr Anoop Mehta (the legal heir). 5.5The assessee has claimed that the AO erred in making an erroneous observation that the legal heir claimed beneficial ownership of the HSBC bank account. It is claimed that the legal heir never claimed the beneficial ownership of the said account. The said account belonged to the appellant and hence, it has been offered in his return of income. It is further claimed that as per the will of Late V C Mehta, Mr Anoop Mehta was beneficiary of the residual estate of late Shri V C Mehta. Thus, by execution of the Will, Mr Anoop Mehta was the beneficiary of Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 6 the money belonging to the residual estate and not direct beneficiary of the alleged HSBC Bank account. 5.6The assessee has submitted that the orders passed by the AO for AY 2006- 07 and AY 2007-08 were similar and were passed in the name of Anoop Mehta as legal heir and the additions made also related to the same HSBC bank account balances. Since the order of the CIT(A) for AY 2007-08 was passed earlier, it was matter of appeal before ITAT wherein the assessee challenged the legality of the order in light of the fact that the order had been passed in the hands of the wrong person. In their decision in ITA No. 4252/Mum/2017 for AY 2007-08 decision dated 29.8.2018, the TAT has quashed the order holding that the AO did not assume correct jurisdiction and that the AO had assessed the wrong person and as such the assessment order was liable to be quashed. The ITAT held that it was the Estate of Late Vrailal Mehta who was liable to be assessed in respect of the HSBC income and not Mr Anoop Mehta in his capacity as legal heir. The assessee has relied on this order claiming that in light of same facts, the assessment order for AY 2006-07 is also liable to be quashed in light of the order of the ITAT for AY 2007-08. 5.7In order to substantiate his bona-fide and intention to ensure assessment of income lying in the HSBC account in correct hands as also to stress that the assessee is not interested in exploring for loopholes to enable that the amount is not subjected to tax in India, the assessee has filed a letter dated 17th October, 2016, submitting that; "This is in reference to the appeal filed by us for AY 2006- 07 on 11.12.2015 before Your Honour, In the above referred appeal, we have taken various grounds including the general ground challenging validity of the assessment order passed by the Assessing Officer. We would like to clarity that we have filed our returns of income for the above assessment year i.e. for AY 2006-07 as well as for AY 2007-08 and AY 2012-13 in which income in the form of peak balance in the bank account of HSBC Bank, Geneva being account no. 5091334050 has been offered for the purpose of taxation. The year- wise position of income declared is as under : Sl. No.A.Y.Date of filing of revised return of income Amount (₹) 1.2006-0726.03.20158,00,94,000/- 2.2007-081,57,86,300/- 3.2012-132,43,20,246/- We would like to clarify that we will stand by our aforesaid disclosure of income & we will not be seeking any reduction in the income offered at any Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 7 stage. We further clarity that we have owned up the balances lying in the above referred bank account and paid the taxes thereon in various assessment years. We would not be claiming any refund of the amount of taxes already paid except for inter-se adjustment of the taxes paid amongst various assessment years. It is noted that a similar letter has also been filed by the assessee for AY 2007-08 during the course of proceedings before ITAT. 4.After analyzing the submissions, ld. CIT(A) held that the order passed by AO in the name of Mr. Anoop Mehta as legal heir is bad-in-law with the following observations: “5.8The submission made by the assessee has been examined. The main submission made by the appellant is that the said ground is squarely covered by the judgement of the Hon'ble ITAT in the appellant's own case in AY 2007-2008 wherein the Hon'ble TAT has quashed the order passed by the Id. A.O. based on the fact that the order has been passed in the name of the wrong person as against the correct person, which is the Estate of Shri. Vrajlal C. Mehta. The relevant portion of the Hon'ble ITAT Order in AY 2007-2008 is reproduced herewith the ready reference: "45. In our view, both the decisions do not apply to the issue under consideration. In both the cases, there were only procedural irregularities, i.e., there was no mistake in assumption of jurisdiction. However, in the instant case, the assessing officer has not assumed jurisdiction over "Estate of late Vrajlal Mehta" at all. The Ld CIT-DR also placed her reliance on the decision rendered by Hon'ble Delhi High Court in the case of Sky light Hospitality LLP (W.P © 10870/2017 and CM No.44503/2017 dated 02-02-2018, which has been confirmed by Hon'ble Supreme court in petition No. 7409/2018 dated 06- 04-2018). The issue in this case was that the appellant contended that the notice wis 148 was issued under wrong name. The Hon'ble Supreme Court noticed that the Hon'ble Delhi High Court, after considering the facts available in that case, concluded that the wrong name given in the notice was merely clerical error which could be corrected u/s 292B of the Act. The said view was upheld by Hon'ble Supreme Court, However, the facts available in the instant case are with regard to the jurisdiction, i.e. who has to be assessed for the impugned income and hence, in our view, the revenue cannot take support of the decision rendered in the case of Sky Light Hospitality LLP. 46. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the assessment framed on the Legal heir, i.e., on Shri Anoop Mehta as legal heir of late Vrajlal © Mehta in respect of income arising after the date of death is not in accordance with the provisions Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 8 of sec. 159 r.w.s. 168 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, Shri Anoop Mehta cannot be asked to pay tax as legal representative of late Vrajlal C Mehta u/s 159 of the Act. We also hold that it is the "Estate of late Vrajlal C Mehta", which is liable to pay tax in terms of sec. 168 of the Act in respect of impugned income. Since the assessing officer has assessed wrong person for the above said income and since the Ld CIT(A) has also confirmed the same, in our view, orders passed by them are not sustainable in law for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we quash the orders passed by the tax authorities." 5.9The contentions of the assessee and the order of the AO have been duly considered. I have gone through the details filed by the assessee as well record available. It is noted that the AO had issued notice u/s 148 in the name of Shri Anoop V. Mehta (Legal heir of late Vrajlal Chandulal Mehta). I have also observed that the return of income as well as all compliances during the course of Assessment Proceedings was made by or under the instructions of the Executors for and on behalf of the Estate of Shri Vrailal C. Mehta. The assessee has further made the AO aware of the entity which is required to be brought to tax with respect to the income under discussion. 5.10I have also gone through the order of Hon'ble Tribunal for AY 2007-08 in the appellant's own case. The Hon'ble Tribunal has accepted the ground raised by the appellant and passed the order in the name of Estate of Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta. The Hon'ble Tribunal in AY 2007-2008 has quashed the orders passed by the Ld. A.O. as well as order passed by my predecessor. I find that in the year under consideration, the Ld. A.O. has accepted the income declared by the appellant in the Return of Income filed pursuant to the notice issued u/s. 148 of the Act. Further, the Order has also been passed under the PAN of Estate of Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta. However, the ld. A.O. has passed the order in the name of the wrong person. Since, the facts and circumstances remains the same in the current year under consideration, respectfully following the order passed by the Hon'ble ITAT in appellant's own case in AY 2007-2008, I hereby hold that the order passed by the ld. A.O. in the name of Anoop Mehta (as legal heir) is bad in law and is hereby quashed following the Tribunal's Order. In view of the aforesaid, Ground No. 1 of the appeal allowed.” 5.Aggrieved, Revenue is in appeal raising following grounds of appeal: 1.Whether on the facts and circumstances of R 3,87,21 920/. the case and in law, the Ld. CIT A) was justified in holding that the deposits in the foreign bank accounts could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee Shri Anoop Mehta, legal heir of late Shri Vrajlal Mehta, who is the beneficiary of the above account. Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 9 2.Whether on the facts and circumstances of as above the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration without going into the merits of the case. 6.At the time of hearing, the ld. DR submitted that he relies on the assessment order on merit and for technical ground, he relies on ITAT order. 7.On the other hand, ld. AR submitted in the form of written submission, which is reproduced below: 1.At the outset, we would like to point out the brief facts of the case. In September 2011, there was a search on the premises of Mr. Anoop Mehta, his companies and firms. He was shown certain documents by which he was informed for the first time of the existence of multiple bank accounts with HSBC Bank in Geneva. 2.During the course of Search itself, Mr. Anoop Mehta admitted to the fact that one account in the name of Yeel Investment Inc. belonged to his father, namely Mr. Vrajlal Mehta, who expired long time back and he was the legal heir to the assets in his father's estate. 3.As regards HSBC Bank Account in the name of Yeel Investments Inc. the Executors of the Estate of Late Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta (the Estate), with help from professional attorneys, brought back the amounts in the account of the Estate. The Executors offered the said amount to tax while filing return of income of the Estate for AY 2012- 13 being the year when the remittance was received in India. 4.As an explanation for not including these amounts in his own return of income, Mr. Anoop Mehta filed letter dated 19.01.2012 contending that although he was the legal heir, the Estate had not yet devolved upon him and hence, the amount was taxable in the hands of the Estate and offered accordingly. 5.Subsequently on 31.03.2014, notice under Section 148 for AY 2007-08 was issued on Mr. Anoop Mehta in his capacity as legal heir of Late Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta by the Ld. Assessing Officer (Ld. A0). Mr. Anoop Mehta informed the executors of such notice and requested them to undertake appropriate action as they were in charge of the Estate. Since the executors had no information with regard to the movement of balances in the HSBC bank account, they did not reflect any additional income on this account in the Return of Income for AY 2007-08 filed on April 9th, 2014. 6.On 17th December 2014, the executors were thereafter provided reasons for reopening assessment proceedings for the Assessment Year 2007-08 which seemed to indicate that the part of income offered to tax for the Assessment Year 2012-13 should instead have been offered to tax for AYs 2006-07, 2007-08 and 2012-13. Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 10 7.Further, on 27th February 2015, a fresh notice us 148 dated 23rd February 2015 was issued on Mr. Anoop Mehta, in his capacity as legal heir of the appellant for the captioned assessment year. Subsequently on March 16th, 2015, Mr. Anoop Mehta was handed over the copy of the Base Note (whose authenticity and veracity is not known). On receipt of the same, to buy peace of mind, the executors of the Estate filed revised returns of income of AYs 2007-08 and 2012-13 and return us. 148 of the Act for AY 2006-07 thereby allocating the balances of the account as appearing in the base note and offering the same as income accordingly requesting due credit of taxes paid in AY 2012-13. 8.The Ld. AO vide his order dated 04.11.2015 passed u/s 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act accepted the income computed by the executors of the Estate but passed the order in the hands of Mr. Anoop Mehta as L/H of Late Vrajlal Mehta instead of the Estate. The Ld. AO also did not give any credit to taxes paid by the assessee on the same amount in AY 2012-13 wherein this income was offered by the assessee earlier and taxes had been duly paid. 9.Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the Hon’ble Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) [CIT(A)] raising various grounds. However, for the sake of relevance and brevity, we would like to limit our submission to the discussion| observations with respect to the grounds of appeal of the present appeal preferred by the Department. 10.Accordingly, we would like to draw Your Honours' attention towards the Ground No. 1 which is reproduced as under: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in holding that the deposits in the foreign bank accounts could not be assessed in the hands of the assessee Shri Anoop Mehta, legal heir of Late Shri Vrajlal Mehta, who is the beneficiary of the above account." 11.Firstly, we would like to submit that despite of the compliance by the executors on behalf of the estate, the assessment order us 143(3) r.w.s 147 of the Act was passed in the name of Mr. Anoop Mehta (the legal heir). 12.Further, the Ld. AO made an erroneous observation stating that the legal heir claimed the beneficial ownership of the HSBC Bank account and also got the balance remitted in India but could not obtain copy of the bank account. In relation to the same, it is submitted that the legal heir never claimed the beneficial ownership of the said account. 13.At this juncture, we would like to highlight that in the case of the appellant for AY 2007-08 wherein the facts of the case are similar to the case under consideration, the Hon "ble Mumbai ITAT vide their order dated 29.08.2018 (ITA No. 4252 /Mum/2017) observed that the AO did not assume correct jurisdiction and that the AO had assessed Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 11 the wrong person. The ITAT held that it was the Estate of Late Vrajlal Mehta who was liable to be assessed in respect of the HSBC income and not Mr. Anoop Mehta in his capacity as legal heir. The relevant portion of the Hon"ble ITAT Order in AY 2007-2008 is reproduced hereunder for your ready reference: "46. In view of the foregoing discussions, we find merit in the contentions of the assessee. Accordingly, we hold that the assessment framed on the Legal heir, i.e., on Shri Anoop Mehta as legal heir of late Vrajlal C Mehta in respect of income arising after the date of Aggrieved by the said assessment order, the appellant filed an appeal before the death is not in accordance with the provisions of sec. 159 r.w.s. 168 of the Income tax Act, 1961. Accordingly, Shri Anoop Mehta cannot be asked to pay tax as legal representative of late Vrajlal C Mehta u/ s 159 of the Act. We also hold that it is the "Estate of late Vrajlal C Mehta", which is liable to pay tax in terms of sec. 168 of the Act in respect of impugned income. Since the assessing officer has assessed wrong person for the above said income and since the Ld CIT(A) has also confirmed the same, in our view, orders passed by them are not sustainable in law for the reasons discussed above. Accordingly, we quash the orders passed by the tax authorities." 14.Apart from relying on the observations made by the Hon "ble ITAT in the aforesaid order, the Hon'ble CIT(A) after duly considering the contentions of the assessee noted that the Ld. AO had issued notice u/s 148 in the name of Shri Anoop V. Mehta (Legal heir of late Vrajlal Chandulal Mehta). The Hon ble CIT(A) also noted that the appellant had made the AO aware of the entity which is required to be brought to tax with respect to the income under discussion. Accordingly, it was held by the Honble CIT(A) that the Ld. AO passed the order in the wrong name i.e. Anoop Mehta (as legal heir) and accordingly the same is bad in law. 15.Moving on, Ground No. 2 is reproduced as under: "Whether on the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) was justified in quashing the assessment proceedings for the year under consideration without going into the merits of the case. 16.With respect to the above, we would like to submit that once it has been established by the appellate authorities that the assessment has been made on the wrong person, the income under consideration cannot be assessed in the hands of the said person. 17.Having said that, it may be of utmost importance to note at this juncture that the Hon ble ITAT for AY 2007-08 and Hon"ble CIT(A) in the impugned order have specifically stated that since the assessment order passed in the name of Mr. Anoop Mehta has been quashed, the return of income as well as revised returns of income filed by the Estate shall remain intact. Hence, there will be no change in the income and the tax paid thereon (along with the credits claim) of the appellant as filed in the return pursuant to the notice issued under section 148 of the Act. Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 12 18.Accordingly, it is evident from the above, that the taxes on the income offered have already been paid by the appellant fully in AY 2012-13 and have been offered as income later by way of revised returns in AYs 2007-08 and 2012-13 and return u/s. 148 in AY 2006-07 in their correct proportions whereby the respective credit of taxes has been claimed. Therefore, there is no loss to the revenue with respect to the income sought to be taxed. 19.In view of the above submissions, it is humbly requested that the order passed by the Ld. CIT(A) may kindly be upheld 8.Considered the rival submission and perused the material on record. We noticed that during the search operation information relating to the HSBC bank account was brought to the notice of Mr. Anoop Mehta, who is one of the legal heir of Late Vrajlal C. Mehta. Mr. Anoop acknowledges the information brought to his notice by the Department and he referred the same information to the executer of the estate of late Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta. This fact was disclosed to the revenue and the AO also acknowledges the same. The Revenue also initiated the proceedings in the name of executors of estate of Late V.C. Mehta in A.Ys. 2006-07 & 2007-08. For this AY in 2006-07, the AO completed the re-assessment in the name of Anoop Mehta as legal heir. This is clearly an initiation of proceedings with wrong jurisdiction similar to AY 2007-08. We observe that in AY 2007-08, the Co-ordinate Bench has quashed the order passed by AO and findings of Ld. CIT(A). We also observed from the record that in AY 2006-07, AO accepted the RoI filed by the executors of Late Vrajlal C. Mehta under the PAN of Late Shri Vrajlal C. Mehta. But the assessment order was passed in the name of Shri Anoop V. Mehta as a legal heir of Late Vrajlal C. Mehta. Since the issue was already decided by the Co- ordinate bench and the Executors of the Estate also declared the income and paid the relevant taxes on the same amount which is the subject matter in this appeal. Therefore, we do not see any reason to interfere with the findings of Vrajlal C. Mehta ITA No. 1903/M/2020 13 ld. CIT(A). Therefore, we are inclined to dismiss the grounds raised by the Department. 9.Coming to the ground no.2, it is not required to proceed on merits of the case when the assessment itself is bad-in-law. Therefore, we do not see any merit in adjudicating this ground. Accordingly, ground raised by the Department is dismissed. 10.In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is dismissed. Order pronounced in the open Court on 25/11/2021. Sd/-Sd/- (PAVAN KUMAR GADALE)(S. RIFAUR RAHMAN) JUDICIAL MEMBERACCOUNTANT MEMBER Mumbai; Dated: 25/11/2021 Rahul Sharma, Sr. P.S. Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1.The Appellant 2.The Respondent. 3.The CIT(A)- 4.CIT 5.DR, ITAT, Mumbai 6.Guard file. BY ORDER, //True Copy// (Dy./Assistant Registrar) ITAT, Mumbai