SANJAY KUMAR BOMB LEGAL HEIR OF LATE SHRI AJIT KUMAR BOMB,NEEMUCH V. INCOME TAX OFFICER NEEMUCH, NEEMUCH

ITA 907/IND/2024

AI Insights

The case involves Sanjay Kumar Bomb, the legal heir of the late Ajit Kumar Bomb, appealing against the orders of the Income Tax Officer and the CIT(A) concerning the assessment year 2013-14. The appeal was initially delayed due to the legal heir's unawareness of the ongoing tax proceedings following the death of his father. The Tribunal noted the procedural issues in the reassessment and the lack of proper opportunity for the legal heir to contest the assessments made under sections 147 and 144B of the Income Tax Act. The Tribunal's decision to remand the case back to the CIT(A) was aimed at ensuring a fair hearing and proper adjudication based on merits.

• Counselvise Citation: [2025] 140 COUNSELVISE.COM (IT) 312743 (ITAT-INDORE)
• Appeal Type: Income Tax Appeal
• Pronouncement Date: 29-04-2025
• Appeal Filed By: Assessee
• Order Result: Allowed
• Bench Allotted: DB
• Assessment Year: 2013-2014
• Laws Referred To: Income Tax Act, 1961
• Result in Favour of: Assessee
• Court: TRIBUNAL
• Department Lawyers: SHRIASHISHPORWAL
• Assessee Lawyers: SHRIS.N. AGRAWAL
• Keywords: Condonation of delay; Set aside; Difference of opinion; Change of opinion; Opportunity of being heard; Reasonable cause; Reassessment proceedings; Principle of natural justice; Non compliance
• Section: 147; 148; 271(1)(c); 69; 234B

Judgement Text

"Page 1 of 9 आयकरअपीलीयअिधकरण, इंदौरɊायपीठ, इंदौर IN THE INCOME TAX APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INDORE BENCH, INDORE BEFORE SHRI BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI, ACCOUNTANT MEMBER AND SHRI PARESH M JOSHI, JUDICIAL MEMBER ITA No.907/Ind/2024 (AY: 2013-14) Sanjay Kumar BombL/H of Late Ajit Kumar Bomb, 18, Bunglow No.41, Bhuteshwar Mandir Road, Neemuch (PAN: AAPPB8200L) बना म/ Vs. Income Tax Officer, Neemuch (Appellant) (Revenue) Assessee by Shri S.N. Agrawal, AR Revenue by Shri Ashish Porwal, Sr. DR Date of Hearing 24.04.2025 Date of Pronouncement 29.04.2025 आदेश/ O R D E R Per Paresh M Joshi, J.M.: This is an appeal filed by the assessee Under Section 253 of the Income Tax Act, 1961 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act” for sake of brevity) before this Tribunal as and by way of Second appeal under the Act. The assessee is aggrieved by the order bearing Number ITBA/NFAC/S/250/2023-24/1060714993(1) dated 09.02.2024 passed by Ld. CIT(A) u/s 250 of the Act which is hereinafter referred to as the “Impugned order”. The relevant Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 2 of 9 Assessment Year is 2013-14 and the corresponding previous year period is from 01.04.2012 to 31.03.2013. 2. FACTUAL MATRIX 2.1 That as and by way of an application dated 23.12.2024 which is for condonation of delay in filing appeal in Form No.36 it is interalia contended that the “impugned order” under challenge was passed on 09.02.2024 by Ld. CIT(A). It was further stated that assessee’s father Shri Ajit Kumar Bomb passed away on 13.12.2023 at that time the present legal heir was jut not aware of any ongoing proceedings with regard to tax matters of his late father. That when a penalty notice was issued by the Department of Income Tax U/s 271(1)(c) my late father on 26.09.2024 the present legal heir came to know of about ongoing proceedings of Assessment Year 2013-14. That later on the legal heir reviewed the Income Tax portal when he learnt that an appeal was filed by his late father for Assessment Year 2013-14 and that the same was already dismissed by the Ld. CIT(A) vide his “impugned order” dated 09.02.2024. Thereafter he forwarded the “impugned order” of Ld. CIT(A) to his present Income Tax counsel for doing needful. An appeal was thereafter Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 3 of 9 drafted, prepared and filed before this Tribunal. The delay in preferring the appeal has happened due to aforesaid reason. An affidavit too is prepared in support. It was prayed that delay be condoned as genuine and reasonable cause is shown. We have carefully perused the condonation of delay application dated 19.12.2024. We notice that “impugned order” is dated 09.02.2024 and that appeal in law is required to be filed within a period of sixty days from date of receipt of order. In Form No.36 date of receipt of “impugned order” is shown as 9th February, 2024. The Form No.36 is dated 21.12.2024. Appeal is filed on 23.12.2024. The appeal is stated to be filed delayed by 237 days by registry. The Ld. DR has not opposed condonation of delay application. Under the circumstances we are of the considered view that assessee has shown reasonable cause and accordingly we condone the delay and admit the appeal. 2.2 That as and by way of an assessment order made u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act the assesee’s total income was computed at Rs.61,52,020/-. Additions were made to the return of income. That the assessment order bears No.ITBA/AST/S/147/2021- Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 4 of 9 22/1041482643(1) the same is dated 24.03.2022 which is hereinafter referred to as the “impugned assessment order”. 2.3 That the assessee being aggrieved by the aforesaid “impugned assessment order” prefers first appeal u/s 246A of the Act before Ld. CIT(A) who by the “impugned order” has dismissed the appeal of the assessee. 2.4 That the assessee being aggrieved by the “impugned order” has preferred the instant second appeal before this tribunal and has raised following grounds of appeal in Form No.36 against the “impugned order” which are stated as under:- “1. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC erred in deciding the appeal ex- parte without giving proper opportunity of being heard. The order so passed by the Ld. CIT(A)-NFAC is therefore wrong and uncalled for. 2. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Officer w.r.t. issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act merely on the basis of information received from other officer and on the 2 basis of statement of third party recorded in other case without confronting the same with the assesse. The notice so issued u/s 148 merely on the basis of said information and Reassessment order passed on the basis of said notice was not justified. The same requires to be quashed. 3. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 5 of 9 Officer w.r.t. issuance of notice under section 148 of the Act dt. 31.03.2021 which was dispatched through post on 01.04.2021 and served to the assessee 03.04.2021 The notice so issued by the L.d. A.O. u/s 148 is barred by the limitation and therefore Reassessment order passed on the basis of such notice was illegal and wrong. The same requires to be quashed. 4. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Officer w.r.t passing of order u/s 147 of the Income Tax Act without allowing the assessee an opportunity to cross examine the person on the basis of whose statement the L.d. A.O. has proposed and finally made addition in the reassessment proceedings inspite of the fact that the assessee has specifically requested to give such opportunity. The Re- assessment order so passed by the Ld. A.O. ignoring the request made by the assessee was against the principle of natural justice therefore the same was not justified. The same requires to be quashed. 5. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Officer w.r.t re-opening the completed assessment of the appellant merely on the basis of information as received by it without independent application of mind. The notice as issued and the assessment order so passed was therefore not justified. The same requires to be quashed. 6. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Officer wirt issuance of the notice Uis 148 of the Act to review the completed assessment merely on the basis of change of opinion. The notice as issued and the assessment order so passed was therefore without jurisdiction was therefore not justified. The same requires to be quashed. 7. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case and in law, the Ld CIT(A) erred in confirming the act of Assessing Officer wrt issuance of the notice under section 148 of the Act without proper sanction from the appropriate authority. The notice as issued and the assessment order so passed was therefore without jurisdiction. The same requires to be quashed 8. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the L.d. CIT(A) erred in confirming the addition made by the Ld. AO Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 6 of 9 of Rs. 55,26,000/- to the Total income of the assessee u/s 69 of the Act on account of alleged payment made by him towards the agreement for purchase of property from Smt. Meena Chauhan and taxing the same as per provision of Sec. 115BBE of the Income Tax without properly appreciating the facts of the case. The same requires to be deleted in full. 9. That on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the Ld. CIT(A) erred in confirming the Interest charged by the AO u/s 9 234A and 234B of Rs. 15,28,548/- and Rs. 17,75,088/- respectively which is excessive. The same requires to be deleted/reduced and to be charged as per law. 10. The assessee reserves its right to add alter and modify the ground of appeal.” 3. Record of Hearing 3.1 The hearing in the matter took place before this Tribunal on 24.04.2025 when Ld. AR for and on behalf of the assessee appeared before us and interalia stated and contended that the “Impugned Order” is illegal, bad in law, and not proper. It is in violation of the principles of natural justice and therefore the “Impugned Order” deserves to be set aside. It was also contended that original assessee Ajit Kumar Bomb has expired and now the legal heir of the deceased is Sanjay Kumar Bomb as “heir” who has undertaken to represent his late father as legal heir. Both at original stage as well as at appellate stage assessee has not been able to present case in meritorious way on account Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 7 of 9 of several difficulties including death of main assessee. The Ld. DR however has not controverted this factual position of the assessee and has left it to this Tribunal to pass appropriate order as it thinks fit and proper under the circumstances but according to law. 4. Observations,findings & conclusions. 4.1 We now have to decide the legality, validity and the proprietary of the “Impugned Order” basis records of the case and rival contentions canvassed before us. 4.2 We have carefully perused the records of the case. 4.3 We basis records of the case and after hearing and upon examining the contentions canvassed before us are of the considered view that “Impugned order” has simply upheld the “impugned assessment order” which was passed u/s 147 r.w.s. 144B of the Act. Further four opportunity was provided by Ld. CIT(A) on 26.04.2023, 10.11.2023, 08.12.2023 and 09.02.2024 but the assessee had expired on 13.12.2023 which probably was cause of non compliance with opportunities given by Ld. CIT(A). Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 8 of 9 4.4 The Ld. AR during the course of hearing has requested us that the legal heir would take the proceedings to it’s logical conclusion in meritorious way by adducing all material available so that 1st appeal is disposed off in effective manner and not as and by way of default or just by uphelding “impugned assessment order”. The Ld. DR for and on behalf of the revenue has not contested this aspect due to death of main assessee. Under these peculiar facts and circumstances of the case we set aside the “impugned order” in order to meet ends of justice by providing legal heir to pursue the proceedings so that on merit it can be taken to its logical end and conclusions. Resultantly, we set aside the “impugned order” and remand the case back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) to pass a fresh order on denovo basis after giving one last opportunity to present legal heir to present case. The assessee to cooperate with the Income Tax Department and not to seek any unnecessary adjournment. 5. Order 5.1 The impugned order is set aside as and by way of remand back to the file of Ld. CIT(A) on denovo basis. Sanjay Kumar Bomb L/H of Ajit Kumar Bomb ITA No. 907/Ind/2024 - A.Y.2013-14 Page 9 of 9 5.2 Appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose. Order pronounced in open court on 29.04.2025. Sd/- Sd/- (BHAGIRATH MAL BIYANI) (PARESH M JOSHI) ACCOUNTANT MEMBER JUDICIAL MEMBER Indore िदनांक/ Dated : 29/04/2025 Dev/Sr. PS Copies to: (1) The appellant (2) The respondent (3) CIT (4) CIT(A) (5) Departmental Representative (6) Guard File By order COPY Senior Private Secretary Income Tax Appellate Tribunal Indore Bench, Indore "