Kishanmohan Saberwal, Coimbatore V. ITO, Coimbatore

ITA 2892/CHNY/2014

• Counselvise Citation: [2016] 131 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 8830 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 1 year(s) 8 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 10-08-2016
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Bench Allotted: C
• Next Hearing Date: 01-08-2016
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Appeal Filed On: 24-11-2014
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: A V SREEKANTH
• Assessee Lawyers: A S SRIRAMAN

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL C BENCH : CHENNAI . . . , ! . '#'$ , % !& ' [ BEFORE SHRI N.R.S. GANESAN, JUDICIAL MEMBER AND SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER ] ./ I.T.A.NO.2892/MDS/2014 / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2010-11 SHRI KRISHNAMOHAN SABERWAL C/O G.V. JHABAKH 157, P.M. SWAMY COLONY COIMBATORE VS. THE INCOME TAX OF FICER WARD II(4) COIMBATORE [PAN AKIPS 5711 Q] ( () / APPELLANT) ( *+() /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI A.S. SRIRAMAN, ADVOCATE /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI A.V. SREEKANTH, JCIT / DATE OF HEARING : 01 - 08 - 2016 ! / DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 10 - 0 8 - 2016 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER THIS APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS DIRECTED AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX (APPEALS)-I, COIMBA TORE, DATED 2.9.2014 FOR ASSESSMENT YEAR 2010-11. THE GROUNDS RAISED BY THE ASSESSEE ARE REPRODUCED HEREUNDER: 1. THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE ASSESSING OFF ICER WAS JUSTIFIED IN PASSING ASSESSMENT ORDER ON A DEAD PER SON. 2. THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAT THE DISALLOWANC E INTEREST ON HOUSE PROPERTY CLAIM STATUTORILY ALLOWABLE WAS JUST AND PROPER. ITA NO. 2892/14 :- 2 -: 3. THE CIT ERRED IN HOLDING THAE INTEREST PAYMENT D ISALLOWANCE MADE THROUGH ACCOUNT PAYEE CHEQUES WAS JUST AND PRO PER. 2. THE LD. AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT TH E REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT TO T HE ASSESSING OFFICER ABOUT DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE ON 8.3.2013. AS PER T HE LD. AR, DESPITE THIS BEING POINTED OUT, THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAS P ASSED THE ASSESSMENT ORDER ON 13.3.2013. LD. AR ARGUED THAT T HE ASSESSMENT ON A DEAD PERSON IS INVALID UNDER THE LAW. HIS FUR THER SUBMISSION WAS THAT THE CIT(A) HAD NOT CONSIDERED THIS ARGUMENT. AS PER THE LD. AR, THE CIT(A) WAS WRONG IN COMING TO THE CONCLUSION THAT THE ASSESSEE COULD NOT FURNISH EVIDENCE OF DEATH OF THE ASSESS EE BEFORE PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER. 3. PER CONTRA, THE LD. DR SUPPORTED THE ORDER OF THE C IT(A). 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUSE D THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES. IT IS NOT DISPUTE D BY THE LD. DR THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD PASSED AWAY ON 8.3.2013. WHETHER OR NOT THE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE ASSESSEE HAD POINTED OUT THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE, THE ASSESSMENT ON A DEAD PERSON CANNOT ST AND. THE FACT IS THAT AS ON THE DATE OF PASSING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER , THE ASSESSEE WAS NO MORE. THEREFORE, WE HAVE NO CHOICE BUT TO S ET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE ASSESSING OFFICER. AT THE SAME TIME, WE SHO ULD POINT OUT THAT ITA NO. 2892/14 :- 3 -: THE ASSESSING OFFICER IS FREE TO PROCEED IN ACCORDA NCE WITH LAW ON THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE. THE ISSUES RAISE D BY THE REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE ON MERITS ARE KEPT OPEN. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE STANDS ALLOWED. ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT ON 10 TH AUGUST, 2016, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( . . . ' ) (N.R.S. GANESAN) / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( ! . '#'$ ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) % / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER #$ / CHENNAI %& / DATED: 10 TH AUGUST, 2016 RD &' ()*) / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 4. + / CIT 2. / RESPONDENT 5. ),- . / DR 3. +/' / CIT(A) 6. -01 / GF