Appeal details
Counselvise Citation
[2019] 116 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 6885 (ITAT-AHMEDABAD)
Assessee PAN
Bench
Appeal Number
Duration Of Justice
4 year(s) 2 month(s) 19 day(s)
Appellant
Respondent
Appeal Type
Income Tax (Search & Seizure) Appeal
Pronouncement Date
30-07-2019
Appeal Filed By
Assessee
Order Result
Allowed
Bench Allotted
D
Assessment Year
2006-2007
Appeal Filed On
11-05-2015
Judgement Text
, B - IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL AHMEDABAD BENCH B BEFORE SHRI WASEE AHMED, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER & SMT. MADHUMITA ROY, JUDICIAL MEMBER . IT(SS)A NOS. 157, 158 & 159/AHD/2015 / ASSTT. YEARS: 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 LATE SHRI SAJID R. DHANANI (THROUGH LEGAL HEIR SMT. SUCHITRA S. DHANANI) BF 8/9, SCHEME NO. 74C, VIJAY NAGAR, INDORE 452 010 PAN NO. ABW PD8 291 K VS. ACIT CIRCLE-1(2), BARODA / (APPELLANT) / (RESPONDENT) ASSESSEE BY : SHRI DIVYAKANT PARIKH, AR REVENUE BY : SHRI R. C. DANDANI, CIT DR ' #$% /DATE OF HEARING : 09/07/2019 &' $% /DATE OF PRONOUNCEMENT: 30/07/2019 () / O R D E R PER MADHUMITA ROY- JM : THIS BUNCH OF THREE APPEALS FILED BY ASSESSEE ARE D IRECTED AGAINST THE ORDERS ALL DATED 16.02.2015 PASSED BY THE CIT(A)-1, VADODA RA ARISING OUT OF THE ORDERS DATED 31.03.2013 PASSED BY THE AO U/S. 153A R.W.S. 143(3) OF THE INCOME TAX ACT, 1961 (HEREINAFTER REFERRED TO AS THE ACT) FOR ASS ESSMENT YEARS 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 RESPECTIVELY. 2. THE SHORT POINT INVOLVED IN THESE PARTICULAR MATT ERS IS THIS AS TO WHETHER THE ASSESSMENT ORDER CAN BE PASSED IN THE NAME OF A DEC EASED PERSON OR NOT. THE BRIEF FACTS LEADING TO THE ISSUE IS THIS THAT THE ASSESSE E NAMELY SHRI SAJID R. DHANANI IT(SS)A NOS. 157, 158 & 159/AHD/2015 A.YS. 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 2 EXPIRED ON 11.11.2012. ON 11.01.2013 A NOTICE IN H IS NAME WAS ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE ACIT CIRCLE-(2) BARODA UNDER SEC. 153A (A) WHEREBY AND WHEREUNDER THE ASSESSEE WAS DIRECTED TO FURNISH RETURN OF HIS INCOME UNDER SEC. 153A OF THE ACT, 1961 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN VIEW OF THE SEARCH AN D SEIZURE PROCEEDING INITIATED IN THE CASE OF TRANSWORLD FURTICHME GROUP (DHANANI GROUP) UNDER SECTION 132 OF THE ACT ON 11.02.2011. THE SAID GROUP MAINLY COMPRI SES OF THE BUSINESS CONCERN OF THREE BROTHERS NAMELY MR. YUSUF RAZAK DHANANI, M R. RAOOF RAZAK DHANANI AND MR. SAJID R. DHANANI. THE COMMON THREAD THAT LI NKS THE THREE GROUPS OF BUSINESS CONCERNS RUN BY THE THREE BROTHERS IS M/S. BLUE DEEBAJ CHEMICALS LLC, A DUBAI (UAE) BASED COMPANY WHICH HOLDS SUBSTANTIAL SH ARES OF THE FLAGSHIP CONCERNS AND SUBSIDIARY CONCERNS INCLUDING M/S.TRANS WORLD FURTICHEM PVT. LTD. DIRECTLY AND INDIRECTLY. IN REPLY TO THE SAID NOTI CE DATED 11.01.2013 THE RETURN OF INCOME WAS FILED IN THE NAME OF THE SAJID ABDUL RAJ ESH DHANANI UNDER SEC. 153A FOR A.Y. 2006-07 ON 06.02.2013. SUCH RETURN WAS VE RIFIED BY THE LEGAL HEIR NAMELY SUCHITRA DHANANI OF THE SAID SAJID ABDUL RAJESH DHA NANI, SINCE DECEASED. IT IS ALSO AN ADMITTED POSITION THAT BY AND UNDER A LETTE R DATED 22.03.2013 THE FACT OF DEATH OF THE ORIGINAL ASSESSEE NAMELY SAJID DHANANI ON 11.11.2012 WAS MADE KNOWN TO THE ACIT BY THE ASSESSEES REPRESENTATIVE B EING THE CHARTERED ACCOUNT OF THE ASSESSEE WHILE SUBMITTING THE DETAILS OF THE COMPANIES. IT IS NEEDLESS TO MENTION THAT ALL THE DOCUMENTS ARE CAREFULLY ANNEXE D BY THE ASSESSEE TO THE PAPER BOOK SUBMITTED BEFORE THE LD. TRIBUNAL. WE FIND THAT THE ASSESSMENT WAS FINALIZED ON 31.03.2013 WITH FOLLOWING ADDITIONS:- 9. INCOME AS PER RETURN OF INCOME FILED U/S. 153A( 1)(A) :RS.20,42,670/- ADD: UNDISCLOSED INCOME AS PER PARA 7.1.1 :RS.17 ,00,000/- UNEXPLAINED MONEY AS PER PARA 7.1.2 :RS.20,78,0 00/- UNEXPLAINED MONEY AS PER PARA 7.2 :RS.9,80,000/ - HOUSE HOLD EXPENSES AS PER PARA 7.3 :RS.3,60,00 0/- TOTAL INCOME :RS.71,60,670/- 3. THE CASE OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US IS THIS THAT T HE ORDER OF ASSESSMENT PASSED IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED SAJID R. DHANANI IS NOT VALID, HAVING NO LEGAL SANCTITY AND THUS LIABLE TO BE QUASHED. THE CASE OF THE AUTH ORITY IS THIS THAT, ONCE THE LEGAL IT(SS)A NOS. 157, 158 & 159/AHD/2015 A.YS. 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 3 HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE FILED THE RETURN OF INCOME IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED THE RESPONSIBILITY AUTOMATICALLY HAS BEEN SWITCHED OVER TO SUCH LEGAL HEIR WHO HAS ALSO PARTICIPATED IN THE ASSESSMENT PROCEEDING AND HENCE CANNOT QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE OUTCOME OF SUCH PROCEEDING BEING THE ASSESSMENT ORDER PASSED BY THE LD. AO. 4. AT THE TIME OF THE HEARING OF THE INSTANT APPEAL LD. COUNSEL APPEARING FOR THE ASSESSEE RELIED UPON THE SERIES OF JUDGMENTS IN SUPPORT OF HIS CONTENTION INCLUDING ONE WHICH WAS PASSED BY THE HONBLE ITAT DELHI BENCH IN ITA NO. 519/DEL/2013 FOR A.Y. 2003-04, COPY WHEREOF WAS ALS O SUBMITTED TO US AS WELL AS TO THE LD. DR. 5. HEARD THE PARTIES, PERUSED THE RELEVANT MATERIAL S AVAILABLE ON RECORD INCLUDING THE JUDGMENTS RELIED UPON BY THE LD. AR B EFORE US. WE FIND THAT IN THE MATTER OF ITA NO. 519/DEL/2013 (ITO WARD-20(3), NEW DELHI VS. LATE SH. SOM NATH MALHOTRA) THE MOOT POINT INVOLVED AS AGITATED BY THE REVENUE AS TO WHETHER THE LD. CIT(A) HAS ERRED IN LA W AND ON FACTS BY IGNORING THE PROVISION OF SEC. 292BB OF THE ACT AND HOLDING THE ASSESSMENT NOT VALID WHEN THE LEGAL HEIR OF THE ASSESSEE HAD DULY ATTENDED TH E PROCEEDINGS. 6. IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE ON THE BASIS OF THE INFO RMATION RECEIVED FROM DIT (INVESTIGATION) NEW DELHI THAT ONE DEEPAK CHANGIA H AD GIVEN AN ACCOMMODATION ENTRY OF RS. 2,01,000/- TO THE DECEASED ASSESSEE, N OTICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT DATED 31.03.2010 WAS SERVED WHEREUPON ON 03.05.2010 THE WIFE OF THE DECEASED INFORMED THE LD. AO ABOUT THE DEATH OF THE DECEASED ON 06.12.2002. THE DEATH CERTIFICATE AND THE COPY OF RETURN WAS ALSO FURNISH ED. THE LD. AO HOWEVER FRAMED THE ASSESSMENT AT AN INCOME OF RS. 22,99,976/- BY M AKING THE ADDITION OF RS. 19,94,120/-. IT(SS)A NOS. 157, 158 & 159/AHD/2015 A.YS. 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 4 THE LD. CIT(A) HELD THE PROCEEDING INVALID SINCE NOT ICE UNDER SEC. 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED IN THE NAME OF THE DEAD PERSON A ND SOUGHT TO BE SERVED ON THE DEAD PERSON TOO. SUCH VIEW OF THE LD. CIT(A) WAS UPH ELD BY THE LD. TRIBUNAL RELYING UPON THE JUDGMENT PASSED BY THE HONBLE ALL AHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS. SURESH CHANDRA JAISWAL IN THE MANNER AS F OLLOWS:- WE HAVE CONSIDERED THE SUBMISSIONS OF BOTH THE PAR TIES AND CAREFULLY GONE THROUGH THE MATERIAL AVAILABLE ON THE RECORD. IN TH E PRESENT CASE, IT IS AN ADMITTED FACT THAT THE AO RECORDED THE REASONS FOR ISSUING THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE LAT E SH. SOMNATH MALHOTRA AND GOT THE APPROVAL OF THE ADDL. CIT, RANGE-20, AL SO IN THE SAME NAME. THE AO ISSUED NOTICE DATED 31.03.2010 U/S 148 OF THE AC T IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND ALSO MENTIONED IN THE BODY OF THE ASSESSMENT ORDER DATED 27.12.2010 THAT THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED AND SERVED UPON THE ASSESSEE BY POST WITHIN THE STATUTORY TIME PERI OD PRESCRIBED, HI THE PRESENT CASE, THE ASSESSEE HAD ALREADY EXPIRED ON 06.12.200 2 AND THE LEGAL HEIR SMT. RAJ RANI MALHOTRA WIFE OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE INF ORMED THE AO ON 03.05.2010 THAT THE ASSESSEE HAD EXPIRED ON 06.12.2 002 AND THE RETURN IN THE NAME OF DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS FILED BY THE LEGAL HE IR ON 29.08.2003. THEREAFTER ALSO THE AO DID NOT ISSUE ANY NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT OR 143(2) OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE LEGAL HEIR, THEREFORE, T HE ASSESSMENT FRAMED BY THE AO ON THE BASIS OF THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 OF THE ACT IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS INVALID. ON A SIMILAR ISSUE T HE HON'BLE ALLAHABAD HIGH COURT IN THE CASE OF CIT VS SURESH CHAND JAISWAL (S UPRA) HAS HELD AS UNDER: THAT THE NOTICE UNDER SECTION 148 OF THE INCOME-TA X ACT, 1961, WAS ADDRESSED TO AN ASSESSEE WHO WAS ALREADY DEAD ON TH E DATE OF ISSUE OF NOTICE. THE NOTICE WAS ISSUED ON MARCH 28, 1985, WHILE THE ASSESSEE HAD DIED ON MARCH 20, 1985. THE NOTICE WAS NOT SERVED UPON THE LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES OF THE ASSESSEE BUT ON THE MUNIM. EVEN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WAS NOT CORRECTLY MENTIONED IN THE NOTICE. THE NOTICE W AS INVALID. 11. IN THE PRESENT CASE ALSO THE NOTICE U/S 148 OF THE ACT WAS ISSUED ON 31.03.2010 IN THE NAME OF THE DECEASED ASSESSEE AND CLAIMED TO HAVE BEEN SERVED UPON THE DECEASED ASSESSEE WHO HAD ALREADY E XPIRED ON 06.12.2002. THEREFORE, THE NOTICE ISSUED U/S 148 WAS INVALID AN D THE ASSESSMENT FRAMED ON THE BASIS OF THE SAID INVALID NOTICE WAS VOID AB IN ITIO. IN THAT VIEW OF THE MATTER, WE DO NOT SEE ANY MERIT IN THIS APPEAL OF T HE DEPARTMENT. 12. IN THE RESULT, THE APPEAL OF THE DEPARTMENT IS DISMISSED. WE FIND THAT THE FACT AVAILABLE IN THAT PARTICULAR CASE IS IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ASSESSEE BEFORE US AND WE, THEREFORE, DO NOT HE SITATE TO HOLD THAT SUCH ADDITION IS NOT SUSTAINABLE IN THE EYE OF LAW WHICH IS AN OU TCOME OF THE PROCEEDINGS IT(SS)A NOS. 157, 158 & 159/AHD/2015 A.YS. 2006-07, 2008-09 & 2010-11 5 INITIATED AGAINST THE DEAD PERSON NAMELY LATE SAJID R DHANANI. WE, THUS, QUASH THE IMPUGNED ADDITION MADE AGAINST THE DECEASED ASS ESSEE. 7. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL IS ALLOWED. IT(SS)A NOS. 158 & 159/AHD/2015 A.YS. 2008-09 & 201 0-11:- 8. THESE GROUNDS OF APPEAL ARE IDENTICAL TO THAT OF THE ISSUE ALREADY BEEN DEALT WITH BY US IN ITA NO. 157/AHD/2015 FOR A.Y. 2006-07 IN FAVOUR OF THE ASSESSEE AND IN THE ABSENCE OF ANY CHANGED CIRCUMSTANCES THE SAME SHALL APPLY MUTATIS MUTANDIS . HENCE, ASSESSEES APPEALS ARE ALLOWED. 9. IN THE RESULT, ASSESSEES APPEAL ARE ALLOWED. [ORDER PRONOUNCED IN THE COURT ON 30-07-2019.] SD/- SD/- ( WASEEM AHMED ) ( MADHUMITA ROY ) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER AHMEDABAD; DATED 30/07/2019 TANMAY TRUE COPY ()$*+,(+ /COPY OF THE ORDER FORWARDED TO : () ' / BY ORDER - / . (DY./ASSTT. REGISTRAR) , / ITAT, AHMEDABAD 1. DATE OF DICTATION : 18-06- 2019&26.06.2019 1. / THE APPELLANT 2. / / THE RESPONDENT. 3. ' 0 / CONCERNED CIT 4. ' 0 ( ) / THE CIT(A) 5. +12 , / DR, ITAT, 6. 234# / GUARD FILE.
