Case Law Details
DCIT Vs Late Ajit Kumar Vaddevalli (ITAT Hyderabad)
We find substance in the submissions of the ld. AR that the AO has passed the order in the name of late Ajit Kumar, nonexistent person, the information of which has been intimated to AO by the wife of assessee, who is the legal heir, during assessment proceedings. A copy of death certificate of Vaddevalli Ajit Kumar has also been produced before us issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Dated 13/05/2014. Considering the case law submitted by the ld. AR, which are in support of assessee’s case, the assessment order passed by the AO is void and abinitio and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Against such assessment order, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT HYDERABAD
This appeal filed by the Revenue is directed against CIT(A) – 5, Hyderabad’s order dated 27/03/2018 for AY 2013-14.
2. Briefly, the facts of the case are that the assessee, an individual, doing software consultancy business, filed his return of income for the AY 2013-14 on 30/09/2013 admitting total income of Rs. 27,09,790/-. The case was selected for scrutiny and statutory notices were issued and also a show cause notice was issued to the assessee on 11/03/2016.
2.1 During the course of assessment proceedings, before completing the assessment by the AO, assessee’s wife and legal heir of assessee submitted that Shri Ajit Kumar Vaddevalli died on 22/03/2014. AO after examining the details submitted by the assessee, assessed the income of the assessee at Rs. 6,45,76,298 by making an addition of Rs. 6,18,66,508/- towards long term capital gains and accordingly, passed the assessment order on 30/03/2016 in the name of Shri Ajit Kumar Vaddevalli.
3. Aggrieved by the order of AO, the legal heirs of the assessee assessee preferred an appeal before the CIT(A) and CIT(A) after considering the submissions of the assessee deleted the addition made by the AO and passed the order in the name of late Ajit Kumar Vaddevalli (Represented by L/R Vaddevalli Sarita Devi).
4. Aggrieved by the order of CIT(A), the revenue is in appeal before the ITAT.
5. At the outset of hearing, the ld. AR quoted Rule 27 of Appellate Tribunal Rules 1913 and submitted that the assessment order was passed in the name of non-existent person i.e. the assessee, who had been expired on 22/03/2014, the information of which was duly intimated to the AO by the wife of assessee, who is the legal heir and the AO duly incorporated the said information in his order
at para 5. He therefore submitted that, however, the AO passed the order in the name of the assessee i.e. late Ajit Kumar, non-existent person, and the order of the AO is void and ab-initio. The ld. AR of the assessee relied on the following case law:
1. Maruti Suzuki India Ltd., [2019] 107 taxmann.com 375 (SC)
2. eMudhra Ltd., [2020] 117 taxmann.com 550 (kar.)
3. Alamelu Veerapan, [2018] 95 taxmann.com 135 (Mad.)
4. Rupa shyamsundar Dhumatkar [2020] 120 taxmann.com 323 (Bom.)
5. Mohit Suresh Harchandrai, [2017] 80 taxmann.com 174 (Mum. Trib.)
6. Vegetable Products Ld., [1973] 88 ITR 192 (SC)
6. The ld. CIT-DR relied on the order of AO and he could not substantiate his argument that the AO has passed the order in the name of non-existent person.
7. After considering the submissions of both the parties and perusing the material on record as well as going through the orders of revenue authorities, we find substance in the submissions of the ld. AR that the AO has passed the order in the name of late Ajit Kumar, nonexistent person, the information of which has been intimated to AO by the wife of assessee, who is the legal heir, during assessment proceedings. A copy of death certificate of Vaddevalli Ajit Kumar has also been produced before us issued by the Greater Hyderabad Municipal Corporation. Dated 13/05/2014. Considering the case law submitted by the ld. AR, which are in support of assessee’s case, the assessment order passed by the AO is void and abinitio and the same is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Against such assessment order, appeal filed by the revenue stands dismissed.
8. In view of the above observations, the appeal of the revenue is dismissed in above terms.
Pronounced in the open court on 2nd June, 2021.
