MANDEEP SINGH KULBIRSINGH THANDHI ,NAVI MUMBAI V. DCIT , PANVEL CIRCLE, PANVEL

ITA 1277/PUN/2025

AI Insights

The case involves an appeal by Mr. Mandeep Singh Kulbirsingh Thandhi, the legal heir of the late Kulbirsingh S. Thandhi, against the order of the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) for the assessment year 2010-11. The primary contention was that the assessment and notice issued under section 148 of the Income Tax Act, 1961, were invalid as they were directed to a deceased individual, who had passed away on 15/07/2008, well before the relevant assessment year. The Tribunal examined the legal validity of the notice and the subsequent assessment, considering precedents and the principles of natural justice.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 712754 (ITAT-PUNE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 30-07-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Assessment Year: 2010-2011
• Other Referred Cases: Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs ACIT 458 ITR 326 (Bombay)
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: EKNATH ABHANG
• Assessee Lawyers: JAYANT. R. BHATT
• Keywords: Set aside; Principle of natural justice
• Section: 147; 148

Judgement Text

" आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण ”एस एम सी” Ɋायपीठ पुणेमŐ। IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL PUNE BENCHES “SMC” :: PUNE BEFORE DR.DIPAK P. RIPOTE, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI VINAY BHAMORE, JUDICIAL MEMBER आयकर अपील सं. / ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 िनधाᭅरण वषᭅ / Assessment Year: 2010-11 Mandeep Singh Kulbirsingh Thandhi, L/h of Kulbirshingh S. Thandhi, Plot No.1639-B KWC, Steel Market Plot, Nr.Foodland Kalamboli, Navi Mumbai, Maharashtra – 410218. V s The DCIT, Panvel Circle. PAN: ACRPT3612N Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee by Shri Jayant. R. Bhatt –AR Revenue by Shri Eknath Abhang – Addl.CIT(DR) Date of hearing 22/07/2025 Date of pronouncement 30/07/2025 आदेश/ ORDER PER DR. DIPAK P. RIPOTE, AM: This is an appeal filed by Mr.Mandeep singh Kulbirsingh Thandi as Legal Heir of Kulbirsingh S. Thandi against the order of ld.Commissioner of Income Tax(Appeal)[[NFAC], passed under section 250 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 for the A.Y.2010-11 dated 28.08.2023, emanating from order u/s.144 r.w.ss 147 of the Income Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 [A] 2 Tax Act, 1961, dated 15.12.2017. The Assessee has raised following grounds of appeal : “1. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law order passed by CIT Appeal being bad in law on various counts including natural justice and that, the same should be set aside 2. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in not appreciating the fact that since the appellant Mr. Kulbirsingh Thandhi was expired on 15.07.2008, the question of assessing the income in his case for the A.Y 2010-11 is itself bad in law and therefore the order passed by the AO deserve to be annulled. 3. Under the facts and the circumstances of the case the Learned CIT(A) while passing the order ex-parte has failed to appreciate that the assessment itself on deceased person was null and void ab initio and therefore he should have set aside the order of the assessing officer in limine even when the order is passed ex-parte. 4. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, the learned in CIT APPEAL has erred in conforming the addition of Rs. 17,65,638/-being 5% of the total turnover of Rs. 3,53,12,750/- without appreciating the fact that the said income has already been taxed in the hands of the partnership firm, thereby resulting in double taxation. Hence, the addition is unjustified and liable to be deleted. 5. Under the facts and circumstances of the case and in law, that the learned CIT(A) has erred in confirming the addition of 17,65,638/-, which is a duplication of income already disclosed in the Return of Income filed by the partnership firm. Hence, the same deserves to be deleted to prevent double taxation. 6. The appellant craves the right to add, amend, modify, alter or delete any of the grounds at the time of the hearing.” Submission of Ld.AR : 2. Ld.AR submitted that Mr.Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi expired on 15/07/2008. He invited our attention to the page 33 of the Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 [A] 3 paper book which was the Death certificate issued by Municipal Corporation of Greater Mumbai. Ld.AR submitted that Notice u/s 148 dated 31/03/2017 issued in the name of deceased Mr.Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi is bad in law. Ld.AR also submitted that there cannot be any assessment for AY 2010-11 of income of deceased Mr.Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi as a dead person cannot earn any income. Therefore, the assessment order is bad in law. 2.1 Ld.AR submitted that deceased Mr.Kulbirsingh Santsingh Thandi was proprietor of Samrat Carriers. After his death the Business of Samrat Carrier has been converted into Partnership firm. The receipts have been shown in the return filed by the firm. Ld.AR submitted that all these facts were explained to the AO. Ld.AR submitted that copy of the Return filed by the Firm was submitted to the AO and it is mentioned in the assessment order. Submission of Ld.DR : 3. Ld.DR accepted that no assessment order can be passed. Findings and Analysis : 4. We have heard both the parties and perused the records. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 [A] 4 4.1 The notice u/s.148 for A.Y.2010-11 dated 31.03.2017 is reproduced here as under : 4.2 Thus, it can be seen that the AO had issued notice u/s 148 for AY 2010-11 on 31/03/2017 in the name of Mr.KulbirsinghSantsingh Thandi.It is noted that Mr.KulbirsinghSantsingh Thandi died on 15/07/2008. Copy of Death Certificate is at page no.33 of the paper book. Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 [A] 5 4.3 No notice can be issued in the name of a deceased person. 5. The Hon’ble Bombay High Court in the case of Dhirendra Bhupendra Sanghvi vs ACIT 458 ITR 326 (Bombay)[27-06-2023] has held as under : Quote, “For the reasons stated above, this Court holds that the notice and all consequential proceedings in the name of a deceased assessee are null and void and consequently, the impugned notice dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148 of the Act, the Order dated 31st March 2022 u/s 148A(d) of the Act and Notice dated 19th March 2022 u/s 148A(b) of the Act are quashed ….” Unquote. 5.1 Respectfully following the Hon’ble Bombay High Court, we hold that the notice u/s 148 is bad in law and the Order u/s.144 r.w.s 147 dated 15/12/2017 for A.Y.2010-11 is void ab initio. 6. In the result, appeal of the assessee is allowed. Delay : There was delay of 566 days in filling appeal before this tribunal. However, we are convinced that there was sufficient reason for delay, hence, the delay is condoned. Order pronounced in the open Court on 30 July, 2025. Sd/- Sd/- VINAY BHAMORE Dr.DIPAK P. RIPOTE JUDICIAL MEMBER ACCOUNTANT MEMBER पुणे / Pune; ᳰदनांक / Dated : 30 July, 2025/ SGR Printed from counselvise.com ITA No.1277/PUN/2025 [A] 6 आदेशकᳱᮧितिलिपअᮕेिषत / Copy of the Order forwarded to : 1. अपीलाथᱮ / The Appellant. 2. ᮧ᭜यथᱮ / The Respondent. 3. The CIT(A), concerned. 4. The Pr. CIT, concerned. 5. िवभागीयᮧितिनिध, आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, “एस एम सी” बᱶच, पुणे / DR, ITAT, “SMC” Bench, Pune. 6. गाडᭅफ़ाइल / Guard File. आदेशानुसार / BY ORDER, // TRUE COPY // Senior Private Secretary आयकर अपीलीय अिधकरण, पुणे/ITAT, Pune. Printed from counselvise.com "