LATE PRATAPSEE R MEHTA, CHENNAI V. ITO CORP WARD-10(3), CHENNAI

ITA 3300/CHNY/2018

• Counselvise Citation: [2019] 118 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 2549 (ITAT-CHENNAI)
• Duration Of Justice: 3 month(s) 4 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-03-2019
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: A
• Assessment Year: 2014-2015
• Appeal Filed On: 03-12-2018
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL

Judgement Text

, , IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, A (SMC) BENCH : CHENNAI . , ! ' # ' $ . %& , ( * + [BEFORE SHRI ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBE R AND SHRI DUVVURU RL REDDY , JUDICIAL MEMBER ] ./I.T.A. NO.3300/CHNY/2018. / ASSESSMENT YEAR : 2014-2015. LATE PRATAPSEE R. MEHTA, BY L/R. VANITA MEHTA 40/41, RANGA NIVAS, BANABY ROAD, KILPAUK, CHENNAI 600 010. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, NON CORPORATE WARD 10(3) CHENNAI. [PAN AHEPM 4380N] ( ,- / APPELLANT) ( ./,- /RESPONDENT) / APPELLANT BY : SHRI. K. BALASUBRAMANIAN, ADV /RESPONDENT BY : SHRI. AR.V. SREENIVASAN, JCIT. /DATE OF HEARING : 06-03-2019 ! /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT : 07-03-2019 0 / O R D E R PER ABRAHAM P. GEORGE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER IN THIS APPEAL, WHICH IS DIRECTED AGAINST AN OR DER DATED 25.09.2018 OF LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEA LS)-12, CHENNAI, MAIN GRIEVANCE RAISED IS THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS DONE ON A DECEASED PERSON, AND INCOME CLAIMED AS EXEMPT FROM LONG TERM ITA NO.3300/2018 :- 2 -: CAPITAL GAINS ON SALE OF SHARE WAS UNFAIRLY CONSIDE RED AS INCOME FROM UNEXPLAINED SOURCE. 2. LD. COUNSEL FOR THE ASSESSEE SUBMITTED THAT LONG TE RM CAPITAL GAINS OF C11,47,849/- ARISING SALE OF EQUITY SHAR ES OF ONE M/S.BLAZON MARBLES LTD WAS DISALLOWED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OF FICER AND CONSIDERED AS UNEXPLAINED INCOME. AS PER THE LD. A UTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, LEGAL HEIR OF THE LATE ASSESSEE HA D INTIMATED THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER THAT THE ASSESSEE WAS NO MORE. RE LYING ON A COPY OF THE NOTICE DATED 22.08.2016 ISSUED BY THE LD. ASSE SSING OFFICER TO THE LEGAL HEIR, LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITTED THAT LD. ASSESSING OFFICER DESPITE HAVING KNOWLEDGE OF THE DEATH OF T HE ASSESSEE PASSED AN ASSESSMENT ORDER IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED. IN ANY CASE, AS PER THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESENTATIVE, EQUITY SHARES IN M/S.BLAZON MARBLES LTD WAS RECEIVED BY THE LATE ASSESSEE ON MERGER OF ONE M/S. SHUBHAM GRANITES LTD WITH THE FORMER. ACCORDING TO HIM, THE LATE ASSESSEE HAD PURCHASED 5000 SHARES OF M/S. SHUBHAM GRANITES LTD ON 31.05.2011 AND SALE THEREOF EFFECTED THROUGH STOCK EXCHANGE WAS GENUINE. CONTENTION OF THE LD. AUTHORISED REPRESE NTATIVE WAS THAT ASSESSEE WAS NOT GIVEN AN OPPORTUNITY TO REPLY TO T HE INVESTIGATION REPORT OF INVESTIGATION WING OF DEPARTMENT OF KOLKA TA AND DELHI RELIED ITA NO.3300/2018 :- 3 -: ON BY THE LOWER AUTHORITIES FOR HOLDING THAT THE CL AIM OF SALE OF SHARES IN M/S. SHUBHAM GRANITES LTD WAS BOGUS. 3. PER CONTRA, LD. DEPARTMENTAL REPRESENTATIVE SUBMITT ED THAT THE MATTER COULD GO BACK TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFIC ER FOR RECONSIDERING THE ISSUE. 4. WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE RIVAL CONTENTIONS AND PERUS ED THE ORDERS OF THE AUTHORITIES BELOW. IT IS TRUE THAT A SSESSEE WAS NO MORE WHEN THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER PASSED THE ASSESSMEN T ORDER. HOWEVER, IN OUR OPINION, JUST FOR A REASON THAT LD. ASSESSI NG OFFICER HAD ISSUED A NOTICE TO THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE ON 22.08.2 016, WOULD NOT BE SUFFICIENT TO COME TO A CONCLUSION THAT LD. ASSES SING OFFICER WAS MADE AWARE OF THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE BY THE LEGAL HEI R. LD. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX (APPEALS) HAD CONFIRMED THE ORDER OF THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER TAKING A VIEW THAT THE MISTAK E IN ADDRESSING COMMITTED BY THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER WAS A TYPOG RAPHICAL ONE. NEVERTHELESS, WE FIND THAT THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICE R HAD RELIED ON INVESTIGATION REPORTS OF THE INVESTIGATION WING OF THE DEPARTMENT OF KOLKATA AND DELHI FOR DISBELIEVING THE CLAIM OF SA LE OF SHARES. LD. ASSESSING OFFICER HAD ALSO RELIED ON STATEMENTS REC ORDED FROM VARIOUS PERSONS FOR WHILE REACHING THE ABOVE CONCLUSION. WE ARE OF THE OPINION THAT ISSUE REQUIRES A RE-VISIT BY LD. ASSES SING OFFICER. WE SET ITA NO.3300/2018 :- 4 -: ASIDE THE ORDERS OF THE LOWER AUTHORITIES AND REMIT THE CASE BACK TO THE LD. ASSESSING OFFICER FOR CONSIDERATION AFRESH. LD . ASSESSING OFFICER HAS TO GIVE ALL MATERIALS RELIED ON BY HIM FOR MAKI NG THE ASSESSMENT TO THE ASSESSEE AND ALSO GIVE AN OPPORTUNITY FOR CROS S EXAMINATION OF THE PERSONS WHOSE STATEMENTS ARE RELIED ON. THEREAFTER HE SHALL PROCEED IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW. 5. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE ASSESSEE IS ALLOW ED FOR STATISTICAL PURPOSE. ORDER PRONOUNCED ON THURSDAY, THE 7TH DAY OF MAR CH, 2019, AT CHENNAI. SD/- SD/- ( ' # ' $ . %& ) ( DUVVURU RL REDDY ) ( / JUDICIAL MEMBER ( . ) (ABRAHAM P. GEORGE) / ACCOUNTANT MEMBER '# / CHENNAI $% / DATED:7TH MARCH, 2019. KV %& '()( / COPY TO: 1 . / APPELLANT 3. *+, / CIT(A) 5. (-. / / DR 2. / RESPONDENT 4. * / CIT 6. .01 / GF