Niruben Manubhai Patel, L/h late Vanmalibhai Mansukhlal Patel, Surat V. Income Tax Officer, Ward-1(1)(1), Surat , Surat

ITA 75/SRT/2024

• Counselvise Citation: [2024] 101 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 7941 (ITAT-SURAT)
• Duration Of Justice: 2 month(s) 16 day(s)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 07-04-2024
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: SMC
• Next Hearing Date: 03-04-2024
• Assessment Year: 2012-2013
• Appeal Filed On: 22-01-2024
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SAPNESH SHETH
• Keywords: Salary income; Principle of natural justice; Period of limitation; Scheme of amalgamation; Reason to believe; TDS; Set aside
• Section: 147; 271(1)(c); 292BB; 143(2)

Judgement Text

IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL, SURAT BENCH, SURAT BEFORE SHRI PAWAN SINGH, JM & DR. A. L. SAINI, AM आयकर अपील सं./ITA No.75/SRT/2024 Assessment Year: (2012-13) (Physical Hearing) Niruben Manubhai Patel, (L/H of late Vanmalibhai Mansukhlal Patel, Brahman Street, Damka Village Choryasi, Surat – 394510 Vs. The ITO, Ware – 1(1)(1), Surat èथायीलेखासं./जीआइआरसं./PAN/GIR No: ABRPP3527H (Assessee) (Respondent) Assessee by Shri Sapnesh Sheth, CA Respondent by Shri Vinod Kumar, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 04/04/2024 Date of Pronouncement 08/04/2024 आदेश / O R D E R PER DR. A. L. SAINI, AM: Captioned appeal filed by the assessee, pertaining to Assessment Year (AY) 2012-13, is directed against the order passed by the Learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), [in short “the ld. CIT(A)”], National Faceless Appeal Centre (in short ‘NFAC’), Delhi, dated 28.12.2023, which in turn arises out of a penalty order passed by Assessing Officer u/s 271(1)(c) of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act”), dated 26.03.2022. 2. The grounds of appeal raised by the assessee are as follows: “1. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC has erred in confirming the action of assessing officer in imposing penalty of Rs.1,87,500/- u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act, 1961. 2. On the facts and circumstances of the case as well as law on the subject, the learned Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals), NFAC, has erred in 2 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel confirming the action of assessing officer in passing penalty order in the name of deceased assessee & thus said order being void is required to be quashed. 3. It is therefore prayed that above addition made by assessing officer and confirmed by Commissioner of Income-Tax (Appeals), NFAC may please be deleted. 4. Assessee craves leave to add, alter or delete any ground(s) either before or in the course of hearing of the appeal.” 3. Succinct facts qua the issue are that during the assessment proceedings, the assessing officer noted that assessee has not filed his return of income for the assessment year (AY) 2011-12 or earlier Assessment years and the name of the assessee is appearing in NMS Module. Information in assessee`s case has been collected after viewing the ITS data, the assessee deposit cash of Rs.7,26,236/- in Bank of Baroda, received interest u/s 94A amounting to Rs.1,11,520/- and salary of Rs.21,39,250/-, during year under consideration. Accordingly, assessee`s case was selected and notice 148 of the I.T. Act was issued on 25.03.2019 and duly served upon the assessee. In response to said notice the assessee filed return of income on 20.04.2019, declaring total income at Rs.10,98,530/- and paid taxes accordingly. The assessee, furnished before the assessing officer, the return of income and computation of income from where it was noted by the assessing officer that the assessee has duly offered salary income as per 26AS. However, interest income was offered for taxation to the tune of Rs.55,760/- only as per 26AS. In the computation of income, the assessee has further disclosed interest income to the tune of Rs.74,949/-. Since, the assessee has offered interest income in response to notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act, no further addition is made. However, penalty proceedings are initiated u/s 271(1)(c) of the I.T. Act and assessing officer in the penalty order imposed the penalty u/s 271(1) (c ) of the I.T. Act at Rs. 1,87,005/-. 3 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel 4. Aggrieved by the order of Assessing Officer, the assessee carried the matter in appeal before the ld. CIT(A), who has confirmed the penalty imposed by the Assessing Officer. During the appellate proceedings, the legal heirs of the assessee, informed/ intimated to the ld CIT(A) that assessee had died, so no penalty should be imposed on the dead person. However, ld CIT(A) rejected the plea of the assessee and stated that legal heir of the assessee did not inform the assessing officer during the penalty proceedings about the death of the assessee. On merits also, the ld CIT(A) held that action of the assessing officer is justified in imposing the penalty. 5. Aggrieved by the order of ld. CIT(A), the assessee is in further appeal before us. 6. At the outset, Ld. Counsel for the assessee, argued that penalty order dated 26.03.2022, was in name of assessee who died on 12/02/2022. Therefore, passing the penalty order in the name of deceased -assessee is itself void and required to be quashed, for that ld Counsel relied on the order of Hon`ble Delhi High Court in the case of Savita Kapila, 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi). 7. On merit, ld Counsel submitted that assessee has no intention to suppress the facts of his case and there was no intentional concealment of income by him. That is, there is no conscious concealment of income. The assessee was under the impression that he was not required to file return of income, as TDS was already deducted on salary income. It can also be seen that assessee has filed the return of income in response to the notice u/s 148 of the I.T. Act and also offered the tax on the income disclosed in response to notice under section 148 of the Act. Hence, the penalty of Rs.1,87,005/- is prayed to be deleted. 4 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel 8. On the other hand, Ld DR for the Revenue, argued that the assessment order was passed by the assessing officer when the assessee was alive. The assessing officer issued show cause notice for levy of penalty on the assessee on 07-12-2019 when the Assessee was alive. Further, another notice was issued on 23-12-2020 and a reminder on 01- 01-2022 was issued to reply to the show cause notice. These notices were issued when the assessee was alive. The assessing officer was not made aware of the demise of the Assessee by the Assessee`s legal representatives that Assessee passed away on 12-02-2022. Therefore, matter may be remitted back to the file of the assessing officer for fresh adjudication. 9. On merit also the ld DR for the revenue submitted that assessee has not pointed out that there was not a conscious concealment of income. Hence, penalty should be imposed on the assessee. 10. We have heard both the parties and carefully gone through the submissions put forth on behalf of the assessee along with the documents furnished and the case laws relied upon, and perused the facts of the case including the findings of the ld. CIT(A) and other material brought on record. We note that before the ld. CIT(A), the appeal was filed by the legal heir of the assessee and legal heir of the assessee had intimated to the ld. CIT(A) that assessee had died inspite of this, the ld. CIT(A) passed the order in the name of dead person which is not acceptable. We note that the Assessing Officer passed the penalty order in the name of assessee who has died on 12.02.2022. The information about the death has been given to the ld CIT(A) and in spite of this, the ld CIT(A) has passed the order in the name of dead person, which is not acceptable. Therefore, we find merit in the submission of 5 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel the ld. Counsel for the assessee, to the effect that penalty order should not be passed on a dead person and ld CIT(A) should have considered this plea of the assessee, however, we note that ld CIT(A) failed to do so. Therefore, we note that the information about the death of the assessee was available before the ld CIT(A), despite of this, the ld CIT(A) issued the notices for hearings, during the appellate proceedings in the name of dead person, and also passed the order in the name of dead person, which is not tenable in the law. That is, ld CIT(A) should have issued the notices, on the legal heirs of the assessee and the order should have been passed in the name of legal heirs of the assessee, which the ld CIT(A) has failed to do so. Therefore, order passed by the ld CIT(A) needs to be quashed and for that reliance is placed in the case of Savita Kapila vs ACIT, 118 taxmann.com 46 (Delhi), wherein it was held that in absence of a statutory provision, a duty cannot be cast upon legal representatives to intimate factum of death of assessee under section 148 of the Act, after his death and, in such a case, it could not have been validity served upon assessee, said notice being invalid, was to be quashed. The detailed findings of the Hon`ble Court are as follows: “COURT'S REASONING AN ALTERNATIVE STATUTORY REMEDY DOES NOT OPERATE AS A BAR TO MAINTAINABILITY OF A WRIT PETITION WHERE THE ORDER OR NOTICE OR PROCEEDINGS ARE WHOLLY WITHOUT JURISDICTION. IF THE ASSESSING OFFICER HAD NO JURISDICTION TO INITIATE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING, THE MERE FACT THAT SUBSEQUENT ORDERS HAVE BEEN PASSED WOULD NOT RENDER THE CHALLENGE TO JURISDICTION INFRUCTUOUS. 23. It is well settled law that an alternative statutory remedy does not operate as a bar to maintainability of a writ petition in at least three contingencies, namely, where the writ petition has been filed for the enforcement of any of the Fundamental Rights or where there has been a violation of the principles of natural justice or where the order or notice or proceedings are wholly without jurisdiction or the vires of an Act is challenged. [See Whirlpool Corporation v. Registrar of Trade Marks, Mumbai and Others [1998] 8 SCC 1]. 6 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel 24. Further, the fact that an assessment order has been passed and it is open to challenge by way of an appeal, does not denude the petitioner of its right to challenge the notice for assessment if it is without jurisdiction. If the assumption of jurisdiction is wrong, the assessment order passed subsequently would have no legs to stand. If the notice goes, so does the order of assessment. It is trite law that if the Assessing Officer had no jurisdiction to initiate assessment proceeding, the mere fact that subsequent orders have been passed would not render the challenge to jurisdiction infructuous. In Calcutta Discount Co. Ltd. v. Income-tax Officer, Companies District I Calcutta and Another AIR 1961 SC 372 the Supreme Court has held as under:- "27. .....It is well settled however that though the writ of prohibition or certiorari will not issue against an executive authority, the High Courts have power to issue in a fit case an order prohibiting an executive authority from acting without jurisdiction. Where such action of an executive authority acting without jurisdiction subjects or is likely to subject a person to lengthy proceedings and unnecessary harassment, the High Courts, it is well settled, will issue appropriate orders or directions to prevent such consequences. 28. Mr Sastri mentioned more than once the fact that the Company would have sufficient opportunity to raise this question viz. whether the Income- tax Officer had reason to believe that underassessment had resulted from non-disclosure of material facts, before the Income-tax Officer himself in the assessment proceedings and if unsuccessful there before the appellate officer or the Appellate Tribunal or in the High Court under section 66(2) of the Indian Income-tax Act. The existence of such alternative remedy is not however always a sufficient reason for refusing a party quick relief by a writ or order prohibiting an authority acting without jurisdiction from continuing such action. 29. In the present case the Company contends that the conditions precedent for the assumption of jurisdiction under section 34 were not satisfied and come to the court at the earliest opportunity. There is nothing in its conduct which would justify the refusal of proper relief under Article 226. When the Constitution confers on the High Courts the power to give relief it becomes the duty of the courts to give such relief in fit cases and the courts would be failing to perform their duty if relief is refused without adequate reasons " THE SINE QUA NON FOR ACQUIRING JURISDICTION TO REOPEN AN ASSESSMENT IS THAT NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 SHOULD BE ISSUED TO A CORRECT PERSON AND NOT TO A DEAD PERSON. CONSEQUENTLY, THE JURISDICTIONAL REQUIREMENT UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 OF SERVICE OF NOTICE WAS NOT FULFILLED IN THE PRESENT INSTANCE. 25. In the present case the notice dated 31st March, 2019 under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was issued to the deceased assessee after the date of his death [21st December, 2018] and thus inevitably the said notice could never have been served upon him. Consequently, the jurisdictional requirement under section 148 of the Act, 1961 of service of notice was not fulfilled in the present instance. 7 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel 26. In the opinion of this Court the issuance of a notice under section 148 of the Act is the foundation for reopening of an assessment. Consequently, the sine qua non for acquiring jurisdiction to reopen an assessment is that such notice should be issued in the name of the correct person. This requirement of issuing notice to a correct person and not to a dead person is not merely a procedural requirement but is a condition precedent to the impugned notice being valid in law. [See Sumit Balkrishna Gupta v. Asstt. Commissioner of Income Tax, Circle 16(2), Mumbai & Ors. [2019] 2 TMI 1209 - Bombay High Court. 27. In Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel v. The Income-tax Officer 2019 (1) TMI 353 - Gujarat High Court has also held, "the question that therefore arises for consideration is whether the notice under section 148 of the Act issued against the deceased assessee can be said to be in conformity with or according to the intent and purposes of the Act. In this regard, it may be noted that a notice under section 148 of the Act is a jurisdictional notice, and existence of a valid notice under section 148 is a condition precedent for exercise of jurisdiction by the Assessing Officer to assess or reassess under section 147 of the Act. The want of valid notice affects the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer to proceed with the assessment and thus, affects the validity of the proceedings for assessment or reassessment. A notice issued under section 148 of the Act against a dead person is invalid, unless the legal representative submits to the jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer without raising any objection." Consequently, in view of the above, a reopening notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 issued in the name of a deceased assessee is null and void. ALSO, NO NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE ACT, 1961 WAS EVER ISSUED UPON THE PETITIONER DURING THE PERIOD OF LIMITATION. CONSEQUENTLY, THE PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE PETITIONER ARE BARRED BY LIMITATION AS PER SECTION 149(1)(b) OF THE ACT, 1961. 28. Also, no notice under section 148 of the Act, 1961 was ever issued to the petitioner during the period of limitation and simply proceedings were transferred to the PAN of the petitioner, who happens to be one of the four legal heirs of the deceased assessee vide letter dated 27th December, 2019. Therefore, the assumption of jurisdiction qua the Petitioner for the relevant assessment year is beyond the period prescribed and consequently, the proceedings against the petitioner are barred by limitation in accordance with Section 149(1)(b) of the Act, 1961. 29. In Smt. Sudha Prasad (supra) the petitioner had challenged the assessment order and demand notice only. Neither non-issuance of notice was challenged nor the issue of proceedings being barred by limitation was raised or decided. Consequently, the said judgment is inapplicable to the present case and is therefore, of no help to the revenue. AS IN THE PRESENT CASE PROCEEDINGS WERE NOT INITIATED/PENDING AGAINST THE ASSESSEE WHEN HE WAS ALIVE AND AFTER HIS DEATH THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE DID NOT 8 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel STEP INTO THE SHOES OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, SECTION 159 OF THE ACT, 1961 DOES NOT APPLY TO THE PRESENT CASE. 30. Section 159 of the Act, 1961 applies to a situation where proceedings are initiated/pending against the assessee when he is alive and after his death the legal representative steps into the shoes of the deceased assessee. Since that is not the present factual scenario, Section 159 of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case. 31. In Alamelu Veerappan v. The Income-tax Officer, Non Corporate Ward 2(2), Chennai 2018 (6) TMI 760 - Madras High Court, it has been held by the Madras High Court, "In such circumstances, the question would be as to whether Section 159 of the Act would get attracted. The answer to this question would be in the negative, as the proceedings under section 159 of the Act can be invoked only if the proceedings have already been initiated when the assessee was alive and was permitted for the proceedings to be continued as against the legal heirs. The factual position in the instant case being otherwise, the provisions of Section 159 of the Act have no application." In Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra), a Coordinate bench of this Court has held, "This court is of the opinion that the absence of any provision in the Act, to fasten revenue liability upon a deceased individual, in the absence of pending or previously instituted proceeding which is really what the present case is all about, renders fatal the effort of the revenue to impose the tax burden upon a legal representative." THERE IS NO STATUTORY REQUIREMENT IMPOSING AN OBLIGATION UPON LEGAL HEIRS TO INTIMATE THE DEATH OF THE ASSESSEE. 32. This Court is of the view that in the absence of a statutory provision it is difficult to cast a duty upon the legal representatives to intimate the factum of death of an assessee to the income tax department. After all, there may be cases where the legal representatives are estranged from the deceased assessee or the deceased assessee may have bequeathed his entire wealth to a charity. Consequently, whether PAN record was updated or not or whether the Department was made aware by the legal representatives or not is irrelevant. In Alamelu Veerappan (supra) it has been held "nothing has been placed before this Court by the Revenue to show that there is a statutory obligation on the part of the legal representatives of the deceased assessee to immediately intimate the death of the assessee or take steps to cancel the PAN registration." 33. The judgment in Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) offers no assistance to the respondents. In Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra) the Supreme Court was dealing with Section 170 of the Act, 1961 (succession to business otherwise than on death) wherein notice under section 143(2) of the Act, 1961 was issued to non-existing company. In that case, Department by very nature of transaction was aware about the amalgamation. However, the said judgment nowhere states that there is an obligation upon the legal representative to inform the Income-tax Department about the death of the assessee or to surrender the PAN of the 9 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel deceased assessee. The relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced hereinbelow:- "35. In this case, the notice under section 143(2) under which jurisdiction was assumed by the assessing officer was issued to a non-existent company. The assessment order was issued against the amalgamating company. This is a substantive illegality and not a procedural violation of the nature adverted to in Section 292B. ************************************** 39. In the present case, despite the fact that the assessing officer was informed of the amalgamating company having ceased to exist as a result of the approved scheme of amalgamation, the jurisdictional notice was issued only in its name. The basis on which jurisdiction was invoked was fundamentally at odds with the legal principle that the amalgamating entity ceases to exist upon the approved scheme of amalgamation. Participation in the proceedings by the appellant in the circumstances cannot operate as an estoppel against law. This position now holds the field in view of the judgment of a co-ordinate Bench of two learned judges which dismissed the appeal of the Revenue in Spice Enfotainment on 2 November 2017. The decision in Spice Enfotainment has been followed in the case of the respondent while dismissing the Special Leave Petition for AY 2011-2012. In doing so, this Court has relied on the decision in Spice Enfotainment. 34. Consequently, the legal heirs are under no statutory obligation to intimate the death of the assessee to the revenue. SECTION 292B OF THE ACT, 1961 HAS BEEN HELD TO BE INAPPLICABLE VIZ-A-VIZ NOTICE ISSUED TO A DEAD PERSON IN RAJENDER KUMAR SEHGAL (SUPRA), CHANDRESHBHAI JAYANTIBHAI PATEL (SUPRA) AND ALAMELU VEERAPPAN (SUPRA). 35. This Court is of the opinion that issuance of notice upon a dead person and non-service of notice does not come under the ambit of mistake, defect or omission. Consequently, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 does not apply to the present case. 36. In Skylight Hospitality (supra) notice was issued to Skylight Hospitality Pvt. Ltd. instead of Skylight Hospitality LLP. In that factual context, this Court had observed, "Noticeably, the appellant having received the said notice, had filed without prejudice reply/letter dated April 11, 2017. They had objected to the notice being issued in the name of the company, which had ceased to exist. However, the reading of the said letter indicates that they had understood and were aware, that the notice was for them. It was relied and dealt with by them." The Supreme Court while dismissing the SLP had also observed "In the peculiar facts of this case, we are convinced that wrong name given in the notice was merely a clerical error which could be corrected under section 292B of the Income-tax Act." 37. In any event, Section 292B of the Act, 1961 has been held to be inapplicable viz-a-viz notice issued to a dead person in Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra), Chandreshbhai Jayantibhai Patel (supra) and Alamelu 10 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel Veerappan (supra). In all the aforesaid cases, the judgment of Skylight Hospitality (supra) had been cited by the revenue. IN RAJENDER KUMAR SEHGAL (SUPRA) A COORDINATE BENCH OF THIS COURT HAS HELD THAT SECTION 292BB OF THE ACT, 1961 IS APPLICABLE TO AN ASSESSEE AND NOT TO A LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE. 38. This Court is also of the view that Section 292BB of the Act, 1961 is applicable to an assessee and not to a legal representative. Further, in the present case one of the legal heirs of the deceased assessee, i.e. the petitioner, had neither cooperated in the assessment proceedings nor filed return or waived the requirement of Section 148 of the Act, 1961 or submitted to jurisdiction of the Assessing Officer. She had merely uploaded the death certificate of the deceased assessee. In Commissioner of Income Tax-VIII, Chennai v. Shri M. Hemanathan 2016 (4) TMI 258 - Madras High Court it has been held "In the case on hand, the assessee was dead. It was the assessee's son, who appeared and perhaps cooperated. Therefore, the primary condition for the invocation of Section 292BB is absent in the case on hand. Section 292BB is in place to take care of contingencies where an assessee is put on notice of the initiation of proceedings, but who takes advantage of defective notices or defective service of notice on him. It is trite to point out that the purpose of issue of notice is to make the noticee aware of the nature of the proceedings. Once the nature of the proceedings is made known and understood by the assessee, he should not be allowed to take advantage of certain procedural defects. That was the purpose behind the enactment of Section 292BB. It cannot be invoked in cases where the very initiation of proceedings is against a dead person. Hence, the second contention cannot also be upheld." 39. Even a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Rajender Kumar Sehgal (supra) has held "If the original assessee had lived and later participated in the proceedings, then, by reason of Section 292BB, she would have been precluded from saying that no notice was factually served upon her. When the notice was issued in her name- when she was no longer of this world, it is inconceivable that she could have participated in the reassessment proceedings, (nor is that the revenue's case) to be estopped from contending that she did not receive it. The plain language of Section 292BB, in our opinion precludes its application, contrary to the revenue's argument." 40. Consequently, the applicability of Section 292BB of the Act, 1961 has been held to be attracted to an assessee and not to legal representatives. CONCLUSION 41. To conclude, the arguments advanced by the respondent are no longer res integra and have been consistently rejected by different High Courts including this jurisdictional Court. In view of consistent, uniform and settled position of law, to accept the submissions of the respondent would amount to unsettling the 'settled law'. In fact, in Pr. Commissioner of Income-tax v. Maruti Suzuki India Limited (supra), the Supreme Court 11 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel speaking through Hon'ble (Dr.) Justice Dhananjaya Y. Chandrachud has succinctly observed as under:- "40. We find no reason to take a different view. There is a value which the court must abide by in promoting the interest of certainty in tax litigation. The view which has been taken by this Court in relation to the respondent for AY 2011-12 must, in our view be adopted in respect of the present appeal which relates to AY 2012-13. Not doing so will only result in uncertainty and displacement of settled expectations. There is a significant value which must attach to observing the requirement of consistency and certainty. Individual affairs are conducted and business decisions are made in the expectation of consistency, uniformity and certainty. To detract from those principles is neither expedient nor desirable." 42. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the present writ petition is allowed and the impugned notice dated 31st March, 2019 and all consequential orders/proceedings passed/initiated thereto including orders dated 21st November, 2019 and 27th December, 2019 are quashed.” 11. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of PCIT vs. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC) held that where assessee company was amalgamated with another company and thereby lost its existence, assessment order passed subsequently in name of said non- existing entity, would be without jurisdiction and was to be set aside. In the present case of assessee, the information about the death of the assessee was available before the ld CIT(A), despite of this, the ld CIT(A) issued the notices for hearings, during the appellate proceedings in the name of dead person, and also passed the order in the name of dead person, which is not tenable in the law, hence we quash the order passed by ld CIT(A). 12. As the order passed by the ld CIT(A), itself is quashed, all other issues on merits of the additions, in the impugned penalty proceedings, are rendered academic and infructuous. 13. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. 12 75/SRT/2024/AY.2012-13 Niruben Manubhai Patel Order is pronounced on 08/04/2024 in the open court. Sd/- Sd/- (PAWAN SINGH) (Dr. A.L. SAINI) JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER lwjr /Surat Ǒदनांक/ Date: 08/04/2024 SAMANTA Copy of the Order forwarded to 1. The Assessee 2. The Respondent 3. The CIT(A) 4. CIT 5. DR/AR, ITAT, Surat 6. Guard File By Order // TRUE COPY // Assistant Registrar/Sr. PS/PS ITAT, Surat