Sponsored
    Follow Us:

Case Law Details

Case Name : Mohammad Sharif Siddiqui (Through legal Heir Suhail Siddiqui) Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)
Appeal Number : ITA No. 1179/MUM/2022
Date of Judgement/Order : 29/12/2022
Related Assessment Year : 2017-18
Become a Premium member to Download. If you are already a Premium member, Login here to access.
Sponsored

Mohammad Sharif Siddiqui (Through legal Heir Suhail Siddiqui) Vs ITO (ITAT Mumbai)

In the assessment order itself, the learned Assessing Officer has mentioned that he has come to know through e-portal that assessee has expired in the month of January, 2019. Despite this fact, the assessment order was passed in the name of late Mr. Mohammad Sharif Siddique on 17th December, 2019. This order was revised by the learned PCIT on 29th March, 2022 by an order passed under Section 263 of the Act. This order was also passed in the name of deceased assessee. The factum of the death of the assessee in the month of January, 2019 is mentioned in the assessment order itself. Despite this fact, the learned PCIT passed the order in the name of deceased assessee. Further, the notice for hearing under Section 263 of the Act dated 24thFebruary, 2022 was also issued in the name of dead person. Thus, where the notices were issued to the assessee under Section 263 of the Act after his death the notice could not have been validly served upon the assessee, therefore, said notices are invalid and liable to quash. The assessment order framed under dead person is also liable to be quashed. Consequently, the order under Section 263 of the Act also passed on the dead person is liable to be quashed.

FULL TEXT OF THE ORDER OF ITAT MUMBAI

01. This appeal is filed by Mr. Suhail Siddiqui in ITA No.1179/Mum/2022 against the revisionary order passed by the Pr. Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 263 of the Income-tax Act, 1961 (the Act) in the name of Late Mr. Mohammad Sharif Siddique for A.Y. 2017-18 on 29th March, 2022 wherein the learned PCIT held that assessment order passed under Section 143(3) of the Act dated 17th December, 2019 determining the total income of the assessee at ₹22,30,740/- by the learned Assessing Officer, ward 20(2)(1), Mumbai (the learned Assessing Officer) is erroneous and prejudicial to the interest of the Revenue.

02. This appeal is filed by the legal heir of late Mr. Mohammad Sharif Siddique (the assessee).

Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.

Sponsored

Join Taxguru’s Network for Latest updates on Income Tax, GST, Company Law, Corporate Laws and other related subjects.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Sponsored
Sponsored
Search Post by Date
July 2024
M T W T F S S
1234567
891011121314
15161718192021
22232425262728
293031